I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.

[Jidai Geki]

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.

I disagree. Creating your own character is KEY in any RPG. If the new incarnation of Fallout didn't feature character creation and gave you a generic Joe Bloggs with a very pre-defined background (yes, I know your character has a father and you leave the vault at nineteen, but it's still fairly loose), you'd be raising bloody hell and you know it.

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.

Again, the choices might have been somewhat hollow given that they didn't result in any real consequences for either your player or the world around you (with the exception of murders, etc., which resulted in a poor reputation and a bounty on your head). Quests were most certainly not forced upon you; you could ignore any and all quests entirely and do your own thing, if you wanted to. There was a limited question of choice in some quests (Specifically Dark Brotherhood quests).

Hell, more examples of dumbing down lie in the dialogue, the level scaling, the dumbing down of the character system etc. etc. etc.

I'll not dispute the dialogue issue, it was poor. The level scaling wasn't great either, especially given that your allies did not level up. However, Bethsoft have stated that neither of these will be an issue in FO3. I'm not holding my breath on the dialogue, given that IN currently doesn't influence conversation choices, and I'll be as disappointed as anyone else if this is a release feature.

Meaningless things, yes. There were no choices in the game,

It depends on what you define as "meaningless".

See Oblivion, or Morrowind.

I was hoping for something more specific than that, rather than blanket statements which deride entire games in one fell swoop. It wasn't all bad.

Yes there is. The evidence lies in the huge sales numbers. That's a lot of evidence, in fact.

That's evidence that it's popular, not evidence of with whom it was popular.

Nice troll, sir. Don't do that.

It was not my intention to troll and I apologise if that's how it seemed.

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.

Perhaps I worded my statement badly. I didn't mean to claim that there was anything wrong with keeping an isometric viewpoint, just that there's not necessarily anything wrong with not keeping it.

As far as contributing something new, I was referring to the fact that the vault suits and the Brotherhood are slightly different. This can be explained and needn't be such a big deal. Obviously the supermutants thing and the Fatman are slightly more worrisome.

 

[quietfanatic]

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.

Congratulations! You are the millionth troll to make that retarded statement.

We do not want a carbon copy of Fallout, although it contains many elements that we love (that's why we are fans) and would like to see again. I could live quite happily without TB/ISO, but it is the many other flaws that will likely kill FO3 for me. Things like toilet drinking and exploding fusion cars are just the most obviously silly flaws, but they signal the likely poor quality of the entire final product. A death of a thousand cuts vs being nuked by an evil mutated super mutant.

I think FO3 will be better than FOT, BOS and Oblivion, but still a tragically mediocre Fallout sequel at best. What makes me sad is the thought that people will love it when it is inferior, and say "This is what Fallout is" without playing the originals, also hurting the chances of getting a faithful sequel.

If they listen to the criticism of fan's I think they can make a much better game (or should I say less bad), but they shouldn't need to be told certain things are stupid.

 

[Black]

See Oblivion, or Morrowind.

I was hoping for something more specific than that, rather than blanket statements which deride entire games in one fell swoop. It wasn't all bad.

I just gave few examples of dumbing down in my previous post here...
+ Morrowind had less skills than Daggerfall and Oblivion had less skills than Morrowind...

 

[Jidai Geki]

Congratulations! You are the millionth troll to make that retarded statement.

Congratulations! You are the second person to dub me a troll because I hold an opinion different to yours. Perhaps you could hold off on the ad hominem attacks and simply respond to what I'm posting?

Things like toilet drinking and exploding fusion cars are just the most obviously silly flaws, but they signal the likely poor quality of the entire final product. A death of a thousand cuts vs being nuked by an evil mutated super mutant.

Agreed on the drinking toilet water. I'm not overly bothered about the nuclear car thing.

I think FO3 will be better than FOT, BOS and Oblivion, but still a tragically mediocre Fallout sequel at best. What makes me sad is the thought that people will love it when it is inferior, and say "This is what Fallout is" without playing the originals, also hurting the chances of getting a faithful sequel.

Or it could quite possibly turn them onto the originals and create a bigger FO 1 & 2 fanbase, increasing pressure for a more faithful continuation.

If they listen to the criticism of fan's I think they can make a much better game (or should I say less bad), but they shouldn't need to be told certain things are stupid.

The thing is, some of the fans here are really quite hostile, and it's not overly surprising that Bethsoft are not prepared to listen when so many people are chanting "fuck Bethesda" over and over again because of a few unpopular design choices which are present a year before release.

Sorry Black, I missed your original post.

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

I can see why they made plot-critical characters immortal. I don't especially agree with it, but people who are less than cautious with how often they save could easily kill a major character and then fuck up their game. I imagine it was an attempt to cut down on player frustration.

As for minigames, I presume you're referring to the lockpicking minigame, which you could ignore in favour of a skill check.

 

[Black]

I can see why they made plot-critical characters immortal.

I don't. See, let's take Arcanum for example. Arcanum too has plot-critical NPCs but even if you kill them you will still be able to finish the game.
Gilbert Bates? Kill him and you can read his journal.

I don't especially agree with it, but people who are less than cautious with how often they save could easily kill a major character and then fuck up their game.

Isn't that part of dumbing down and mainstreaming? Something Fallout game should never do?

As for minigames, I presume you're referring to the lockpicking minigame, which you could ignore in favour of a skill check.

And speech minigame. Yeah, you could avoid it too but that doesn't change the fact that your speech and locpkicking skills could suck and you still would be able to make friends and open locked doors. Again, dumbing down.

 

[quietfanatic]

I disagree. Creating your own character is KEY in any RPG.

Character creation involves choice and can shape how you play a game. Of course it can be an important and useful tool, but it is not key. If you can easily gain experience such that variation in statistics between character builds disappears, one could say initial creation looses relevance, as the same character can use any option, or is forced to use the same approach anyway by poor quest design. Therefore it is the sophistication of the pattern of interaction with the game world that takes prominence. How many options does one have, how many consequences are there, and what is the sophistication of all of the above?

Again, the choices might have been somewhat hollow given that they didn't result in any real consequences for either your player or the world around you (with the exception of murders, etc., which resulted in a poor reputation and a bounty on your head).

That you could pay off. Hollow choices and no consequences makes for a crap RPG. You should go to the Codex to discuss this for all eternity.

It was not my intention to troll and I apologise if that's how it seemed.

It was an ignorant and offensive comment that has been made many times before, with a touch of aggression.

As far as contributing something new, I was referring to the fact that the vault suits and the Brotherhood are slightly different. This can be explained and needn't be such a big deal. Obviously the supermutants thing and the Fatman are slightly more worrisome.

Changing something that we like, and making it worse for no apparent reason is not contributing something new. Poor rehashing is just bad. Simplifying the Brotherhood is the most worrying. Looking like dumbing things down. The vault jumpsuit and mutants were an important part of the art style and setting. Creating something new needn’t lead to destruction of the setting.

 

[Sander]

I disagree. Creating your own character is KEY in any RPG. If the new incarnation of Fallout didn't feature character creation and gave you a generic Joe Bloggs with a very pre-defined background (yes, I know your character has a father and you leave the vault at nineteen, but it's still fairly loose), you'd be raising bloody hell and you know it.

This is a bullshit argument. Character creation is only marginally important in an RPG, character development through choices and consequences is much more important because *that* is what defines a character, not a bunch of stats that you choose at the beginning of the game.
Hell, if character creation is the core of an RPG, most sports games must be RPGs as well.

It depends on what you define as "meaningless".

Anything that has no consequences or costs is meaningless.

I was hoping for something more specific than that, rather than blanket statements which deride entire games in one fell swoop. It wasn't all bad.

I didn't claim it was all bad.

That's evidence that it's popular, not evidence of with whom it was popular.

Statistics. There's simply no way that a niche audience bought that many games. Casual gamers must have bought the game as well.
Hell, a lot of classic RPG players are complaining about Oblivion.

I can see why they made plot-critical characters immortal. I don't especially agree with it, but people who are less than cautious with how often they save could easily kill a major character and then fuck up their game. I imagine it was an attempt to cut down on player frustration.

That's just poor design. It isn't hard to create plots that allow for you to kill 'critical' characters. The fact that they need to use immortal NPCs for that shows their incompetence.

The thing is, some of the fans here are really quite hostile, and it's not overly surprising that Bethsoft are not prepared to listen when so many people are chanting "fuck Bethesda" over and over again because of a few unpopular design choices which are present a year before release.

They present those design issues as public knowledge. If it's all subject to change and all variable, then why did they present them as representative of their game at this point? Furthermore, why did they not say 'Hey, we have this now, but we could change it'?
In fact, going 'it might just be good' in the face of evidence that it isn't is a lot weirder than simply judging the information they've decided to release.

Also, we haven't been all 'fuck Bethesda' in the beginning stages, you know. We held a 'wait and see' attitude for at least 2 years. Bethesda didn't listen back then either.

Congratulations! You are the second person to dub me a troll because I hold an opinion different to yours. Perhaps you could hold off on the ad hominem attacks and simply respond to what I'm posting?

That's more because of the way in which you posted it.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I disagree. Creating your own character is KEY in any RPG.

There are plenty of games that feature some sort of character creation or at least character progression. It doesn't make them RPGs. Just as there are RPGs that fix your character in a certain role, or with a prehistory not of your choosing.

If the new incarnation of Fallout didn't feature character creation and gave you a generic Joe Bloggs with a very pre-defined background (yes, I know your character has a father and you leave the vault at nineteen, but it's still fairly loose), you'd be raising bloody hell and you know it.

Both Fallout's have given you a very pre-defined background, but surely any loss of freedom of choice is surely something to bitch about?

As far as contributing something new, I was referring to the fact that the vault suits and the Brotherhood are slightly different.

And we are meant to deduce that how? When your statement only mentions isometric and turnbased.

 

[quietfanatic]

Congratulations! You are the second person to dub me a troll because I hold an opinion different to yours. Perhaps you could hold off on the ad hominem attacks and simply respond to what I'm posting?

To be precise, that was the only blatant troll and our views on other things have nothing to do with that. It was objectively incorrect at face value. I’ll take your word for it now that you do not hold the excruciatingly annoying misconception that people want an exact copy of Fallout without innovation, but it looked like you slipped into that for a moment is all. Sorry, but I’ve been grumbling about it all night.

Or it could quite possibly turn them onto the originals and create a bigger FO 1 & 2 fanbase, increasing pressure for a more faithful continuation.

As we are learning from the TES treatment? Fat chance. If many more people say Oblivion is brilliant than going on to play Morrowind, Arena, Daggerfall etc., why go back? The idea is that they are widening the market by making the game less demanding, whilst retaining elements that they personally like, so why go back for a short-term commercial venture? They already have quite a bit of pressure from the Fallout fanbase and seem to be ignoring us, so it seems unlikely that they would fix things without suffering financial losses, in which they might just try to pump up the marketing and bloom anyway.

The thing is, some of the fans here are really quite hostile, and it's not overly surprising that Bethsoft are not prepared to listen when so many people are chanting "fuck Bethesda" over and over again because of a few unpopular design choices which are present a year before release.

It is not at all surprising that fans are hostile, but it would be childish to ignore them because of some individuals’ ranting. They explicitly say that they are listening to the fanbase, but, you guessed it, argue that we want the carbon copy from 1997/impossible things, and that they’ll make the game they want to make, in the way they do best. How much they will act on fan comments remains to be seen. They’ve been designing this for a long while and it is possible that some get put off by our distrust of them, but fulfilling almost every dark prediction and shutting out the fans doesn’t help things.

 

[Black]

About the character creation- The Sims isn't an rpg game though it has skills etc, right?

 

[Jidai Geki]

With regards to the character creation thing- I said that it's key, not that character creation= RPG. Imagine that Fallouts 1 and 2 had given us exclusively female thief characters and forced us to play through on that. Would that not have been incredibly limiting? If Bethsoft had announced that Fallout 3 could be played only as a diplomat character with initially poor weapons skills and the traits "good-natured" and "jinxed"? What would you have said to that?

Character creation is an important part of any RPG. Hell, the name says it all- "Role-playing game". You create an alternate persona and then you take on their role. Yes, of course choice is important in that. But is character creation not just as important? Isn't playing your own creation integral to the ethos of an RPG, rather than playing as somebody else's creation?

Yes, sports games such as "Tiger Woods" allow you to create your own character, but it's purely aesthetic. You don't determine starting skills. Yes, so does Sims, but it lacks a storyline and a sense of progression.

Both Fallout's have given you a very pre-defined background, but surely any loss of freedom of choice is surely something to bitch about?

The only thing pre-defined about your background is where you grew up and where you start. Everything else- age, name, gender, skills, traits- is defined by the player. Not incredibly pre-defined.

And we are meant to deduce that how? When your statement only mentions isometric and turnbased.

I said "turn-based isometric games which contribute nothing new...". By this, I didn't mean that turn-based, isometric games absolutely could not contribute anything new to the genre, just that I personally see gripes about baggy vaultsuits and slightly different BoS armour as overly resistant to change. I'm referring exclusively to aesthetic changes here, mind; changes to established canon material or changes to gaming mechanics are obviously to be viewed with suspicion.

To be precise, that was the only blatant troll and our views on other things have nothing to do with that. It was objectively incorrect at face value. I’ll take your word for it now that you do not hold the excruciatingly annoying misconception that people want an exact copy of Fallout without innovation, but it looked like you slipped into that for a moment is all. Sorry, but I’ve been grumbling about it all night.

Fair enough. To be honest, however, I've not had the warmest welcome here because of my somewhat radical views, and so I've had to go on the defensive. Again, I'm not here to troll, I'm here as a Fallout fan to discuss the future of the franchise.

 

[quietfanatic]

I said "turn-based isometric games which contribute nothing new...". By this, I didn't mean that turn-based, isometric games absolutely could not contribute anything new to the genre, just that I personally see gripes about baggy vaultsuits and slightly different BoS armour as overly resistant to change. I'm referring exclusively to aesthetic changes here, mind; changes to established canon material or changes to gaming mechanics are obviously to be viewed with suspicion.

Please say so then. A change from ISO/TB to FPS/RT is a massive change in mechanics. The vault jumpsuits and BoS are important parts of canon and the setting. I don't mind changing aesthetic details, but it should make sense and have a good reason other than because it was easier and they felt like it. I have the right to complain about the smallest detail, but there is the risk that people will think I do not prioritise. For example, changed power armour is much less worrying than changed BoS structure. Mindless bad guy mutants is worse than orcs. Poor design is worse than the change in interface. But this doesn't make the lesser problems OK.

 

[Sander]

With regards to the character creation thing- I said that it's key, not that character creation= RPG. Imagine that Fallouts 1 and 2 had given us exclusively female thief characters and forced us to play through on that. Would that not have been incredibly limiting? If Bethsoft had announced that Fallout 3 could be played only as a diplomat character with initially poor weapons skills and the traits "good-natured" and "jinxed"? What would you have said to that?

Yes, that is limiting. Specifically, it limits your *in-game choices*. It's not just being able to create a character that is important (because it isn't, see Planescape: Torment), it's the ability to actually play in the way you want to play that is important. Character creation just facilitates that, but to suggest that it is the core of an RPG is ridiculous and simply makes for extremely hollow RPGs (see Diablo).

Character creation is an important part of any RPG. Hell, the name says it all- "Role-playing game". You create an alternate persona and then you take on their role. Yes, of course choice is important in that. But is character creation not just as important? Isn't playing your own creation integral to the ethos of an RPG, rather than playing as somebody else's creation?

Character creation is solely a means to allow the player as many choices as possible, to not lock out any paths the player may want to take. It is not the core of an RPG by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it key to it. And your original contention that Oblivion must be a good RPG because it kept character creation is ridiculous.

Yes, sports games such as "Tiger Woods" allow you to create your own character, but it's purely aesthetic. You don't determine starting skills. Yes, so does Sims, but it lacks a storyline and a sense of progression.

There are a ton of sports games that allow you to create your own character, progress them as you like and may even have some (lame) form of storyline. That doesn't make them RPGs.

 

[TheWesDude]

i just want to post a correction...

aklabeth was released in june or july of 1979 not 1980.

 

[Kyuu]

extremely hollow RPGs (see Diablo).

Diablo isn't really a good example, since I don't think you'd find many people who'd seriously claim it's an RPG. Also, Diablo didn't really have character customization... you simply chose between 3 different classes (7 in Diablo 2: LoD). Diablo is simply a hack'n'slash treasure hunt. I think most places classify it as "action-adventure."

 

[Jidai Geki]

Yes, that is limiting. Specifically, it limits your *in-game choices*. It's not just being able to create a character that is important (because it isn't, see Planescape: Torment), it's the ability to actually play in the way you want to play that is important. Character creation just facilitates that, but to suggest that it is the core of an RPG is ridiculous and simply makes for extremely hollow RPGs (see Diablo).

I've not played Planescape: Torment. Frankly, your contention that character creation is not important to RPG's is ridicluous and smacks of a desire to be objectionable and disagree with me in any way you can. As Kyuu pointed out, Diablo had no character creation, merely pre-defined character classes.

Character creation is solely a means to allow the player as many choices as possible, to not lock out any paths the player may want to take. It is not the core of an RPG by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it key to it. And your original contention that Oblivion must be a good RPG because it kept character creation is ridiculous.

That was not my original contention, as I'm sure you could divine if you weren't so hell-bent on putting words in my mouth. I said that character creation is key to RPG's. I stand by that contention.

There are a ton of sports games that allow you to create your own character, progress them as you like and may even have some (lame) form of storyline. That doesn't make them RPGs.

No, it does not. Probably why, instead of posting "If u can Kr8 charz its a RPG lol!!11", I posted "character creation is key to an RPG". I did not say it was the only thing that makes an RPG, and I didn't say that any game that features this is an RPG.

 

[WarmMachineME]

I don't think the main character having a father is that big a deal in and of itself. Every Fallout character had a father, he or she wasn't grown in a testube. The player simply sees and speaks to this one. Other than age and perhaps what the character did prior to leaving the vault is not left up to choice, but that's never been the focus in any of the games anyway. I don't think we have enough evidence to say with total confidence that there will or won't be freedom of choice and consequences once the vault is left behind.

Is Bethesda going to put their own spin (optimistically speaking) on the Fallout universe? Of course. It's like someone else besides C.S. Lewis writing new Chronicles of Narnia books. There are going to be differences and plenty of them. I think I can speak for anyone who's been a Fallout fan since the original that we'd all prefer for Tim Cain to be put in charge of a hand-picked development team for Fallout 3, 4, ad infinitum. Otherwise, we will never see the one, true Fallout 3 as some have described it.

I find it interesting to note here that I have seen discussion on whether Fallout 2 was really true to the universe and canon of Fallout 1. People like to say that subsequent Fallout games can't really be Fallout, because they aren't Fallout-y enough. In that sense, there has never been another "Fallout" game, nor will there ever be. Some people are doomed to be eternally disgruntled.

What I choose to believe is that, just as some say there's no such thing as bad publicity, at this point there's no such thing as a bad Fallout sequel. Within reason, of course. Nobody wants to see BoS 2. But a year ago, I fully believed I would never play a new Fallout game ever again. If Bethesda only manages to make a good game that gets people talking about Fallout again, I'll consider it a victory.

What fans should be clamoring for - especially we die-hard ones - is the inclusion of a feature identical to one in Oblivion. Yes, you read that right. I think what we really need is for a Fallout 3 Construction Set to also be released.

Much of the complaints about Oblivion from those with more discerning tastes, shall we say, were skillfully addressed through community-made plugins. Many plugins transform the original game into something very different. So if a similar tool were released for Fallout 3, then fans could remove the Fatboy, alter the nuclear cars and the healing methods, send the super mutants to school, and anything else that they wanted. A series of NMA plugins could mold anything short of a total wreck of a game into Fallout's image.

Yes, those who were playing Fallout 3 on a console would be out of luck. But that's what they get for playing a bastard console version. The PC shall forever be Fallout's chosen vessel.

 

[Jidai Geki]

Well said, WarmMachineME. I can't say I entirely agree with your opinion of us console users, but aside from that I agree with your points.

The inclusion of your father in this game is, if anything, a rather interesting choice. The vast majority of RPG protagonists with any form of pre-defined background are orphans, and it's rare that either of your parents appear in a game (Fable is an exception, though this was obviously RPG-lite, and they both died a short time into the game anyway). I like the fact that your father's appearance is based upon the appearance you choose for your character.

 

[WarmMachineME]

Don't worry Jidai, it was mostly just a bit of a joke. The first video/computer game I ever played in my life was on a console, and today I enjoy PC and consoles about equally.

What I'm mainly opposed to is a game losing integrity for the sake of consoles, which is what many complain happened to the Elder Scrolls franchise. They call it "dumbed down for consoles," but PC players aren't smarter.
I think I could go on for a long time and not get to my point, so let me sum up what I'm trying to say: If someone wants to make a cross platform game, don't make it easier because the console has less buttons available to press, make controls more intuitive.

As far as the whole father issue, I think it's already got more attention than it really merits. It doesn't alienate the franchise in my opinion, nor does the character's origin limit player choice and freedom in this case. Sure, you have to be a 19 year old, and the other games let you put in any number within a range, but any consequences of the age the player chose were in the player's imagination.

 

[Sander]

I've not played Planescape: Torment. Frankly, your contention that character creation is not important to RPG's is ridicluous and smacks of a desire to be objectionable and disagree with me in any way you can. As Kyuu pointed out, Diablo had no character creation, merely pre-defined character classes.

Saying that I'm just being objectionable for the sake of it doesn't actually make my arguments wrong in any way, you know.

That was not my original contention, as I'm sure you could divine if you weren't so hell-bent on putting words in my mouth. I said that character creation is key to RPG's. I stand by that contention.

Please do not lie:

1) Oblivion was a terribly dumbed down RPG.

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 claimed that character creation is *the* core of any RPG. Full stop. End of story.

So if a similar tool were released for Fallout 3, then fans could remove the Fatboy, alter the nuclear cars and the healing methods, send the super mutants to school, and anything else that they wanted. A series of NMA plugins could mold anything short of a total wreck of a game into Fallout's image.

The ability to mod out the suck does not make Bethesda's release any better whatsoever.