I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.

[WarmMachineME]

No, that's true. But if we are certain that the release will contain some quantity of suck, at least we can hope for a ready method of removing it.

I'm trying to look on the bright side, damn it.

 

[Kahgan]

trying to find a bright side of Fallout 3 is like trying to find a dark side of the sun..

 

[Maphusio]

No, that's true. But if we are certain that the release will contain some quantity of suck, at least we can hope for a ready method of removing it.

I'm trying to look on the bright side, damn it.

In the end you still have to pay Bethsoft the $$$ and that pisses me off to no end.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

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.

Torment is often regarded as one of the finest crpgs (only let down by it's combat), it features virtually no character creation. You are the Nameless One, you can't define your name (duh!) age, race, gender, alignment, appearance or background.

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.

Jedi Academy features plenty of character creation, like Torment you can't choose a name, but you can define appearance, gender, race and species. Force powers might have replaced traditional stats like strength and agility but still there you get to choose which powers you take or advance.

If then an acclaimed crpg has as much if not less choice in character creation than a shooter/hack & slash game then isn't it ridiculous to assert that character creation is key (or core) to rpgs? If rpgs are just one of many types of games that feature character creation in some form then what sets rpgs apart? Isn't it then that element that is 'key' to rpgs?

 

[Jidai Geki]

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

Fair enough, I didn't realise I had written that. Allow me to rephrase: character creation is key to RPG's.

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

I didn't say that it did, but you seem to have formed an opinion of me, namely that everything I say is wrong, and nothing seems to change that.

Jedi Academy features plenty of character creation, like Torment you can't choose a name, but you can define appearance, gender, race and species. Force powers might have replaced traditional stats like strength and agility but still there you get to choose which powers you take or advance.

Such games are often stated to have "RPG elements", because the idea of character creation and shaping the progress of your character is inherently RPG.

If then an acclaimed crpg has as much if not less choice in character creation than a shooter/hack & slash game then isn't it ridiculous to assert that character creation is key (or core) to rpgs? If rpgs are just one of many types of games that feature character creation in some form then what sets rpgs apart? Isn't it then that element that is 'key' to rpgs?

Not at all. It just means that such games have, as I said above, elements which they have borrowed from RPG's. RPG's were the first kind of game to feature character creation, and the fact that other genres are now making use of this feature doesn't mean that it's any less important now.

I'm not trying to say that the only thing which sets an RPG apart is your ability to create a character, despite my poor wording earlier. I'm simply saying that it is important to most RPG's, and it's sure as hell important to Fallout.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I'm not trying to say that the only thing which sets an RPG apart is your ability to create a character, despite my poor wording earlier. I'm simply saying that it is important to most RPG's, and it's sure as hell important to Fallout.

It might be an element of rpgs, but that doesn't make it the key element. It is the one element that is most often commonly found in non rpgs and there are rpgs that don't or make very little use of it. That doesn't fit the definition of 'key'.

Fallout could be played with the prefabricated characters, if it hadn't had any character creation just character advancement it would of still been a good rpg. Most rpgs have a ready made character or a quick build option, if character creation was so key to rpgs then why include preset characters?

 

[Jidai Geki]

I'm not trying to say that the only thing which sets an RPG apart is your ability to create a character, despite my poor wording earlier. I'm simply saying that it is important to most RPG's, and it's sure as hell important to Fallout.

It might be an element of rpgs, but that doesn't make it the key element. It is the one element that is most often commonly found in non rpgs and there are rpgs that don't or make very little use of it. That doesn't fit the definition of 'key'.

Fallout could be played with the prefabricated characters, if it hadn't had any character creation just character advancement it would of still been a good rpg. Most rpgs have a ready made character or a quick build option, if character creation was so key to rpgs then why include preset characters?

All right- allow me to pose a question I've already posed: had Fallout 3 not included character creation, would you have accepted that, or would you have lambasted the decision at length?

 

[quietfanatic]

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

Fair enough, I didn't realise I had written that. Allow me to rephrase: character creation is key to RPG's.

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

I didn't say that it did, but you seem to have formed an opinion of me, namely that everything I say is wrong, and nothing seems to change that.

You make my opinion move toward the possibility that you are trying to be irritating. The alternative is that although your writing style seems alright, you have a poor grasp of your English vocabulary.

To answer your silly question, of course people would criticise a lack of character creation for a Fallout sequel. But you are speaking generally about RPG's, rather than specifically about Fallout. I would criticise a simplified alternative to S.P.E.C.I.A.L. too. I hate stupid hypotheticals, but if I was forced to take a prefab character in Fallout 3, it could still be a good RPG.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

All right- allow me to pose a question I've already posed: had Fallout 3 not included character creation, would you have accepted that, or would you have lambasted the decision at length?

Lambasted definately. Why? Because it's removing an option, dumbing down.

Try selling someone coffee made from freshly ground beans and then give them instant the next time under the same label for the same price. You wouldn't get away with it.

 

[Jidai Geki]

You make my opinion move toward the possibility that you are trying to be irritating. The alternative is that although your writing style seems alright, you have a poor grasp of your English vocabulary.

Ad hominem attacks are for cool, interesting people with style. By the way, "alright" is not a real word. Clearly your grasp of English spelling and grammar is lacking. I suppose your writing style is all right, though.

To answer your silly question, of course people would criticise a lack of character creation for a Fallout sequel. But you are speaking generally about RPG's, rather than specifically about Fallout. I would criticise a simplified alternative to S.P.E.C.I.A.L. too. I hate stupid hypotheticals, but if I was forced to take a prefab character in Fallout 3, it could still be a good RPG.

If my question is so "silly", by all means don't bother to answer it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

The point of my "stupid hypothetical" was to point out that character creation is very important to Fallout, and indeed it is important to most RPG's. Can you have an RPG without character creation? I suppose so, although they don't tend to be as engaging.

Try selling someone coffee made from freshly ground beans and then give them instant the next time under the same label for the same price. You wouldn't get away with it.

No, but to further your analogy, if a new company bought the rights to the coffee and announced certain changes to the brand, it's conceivable that they would get away with it. Bethesda aren't trying to hoodwink anyone, and it would be foolish to try. They've been forthright about planned changes to Fallout gaming mechanics.

 

[FeelTheRads]

The point of my "stupid hypothetical" was to point out that character creation is very important to Fallout, and indeed it is important to most RPG's. Can you have an RPG without character creation? I suppose so, although they don't tend to be as engaging.

Once again, go play Torment. It basically has no character creation, and yet it's more RPG than anything Bethesda, BioWare or other supposedly RPG developers did.

 

[Sander]

Ad hominem attacks are for cool, interesting people with style. By the way, "alright" is not a real word.

Yes it is. If you're going to make a comeback, do it right.

No, but to further your analogy, if a new company bought the rights to the coffee and announced certain changes to the brand, it's conceivable that they would get away with it.

See New Coke. Yes, I know, still the same company, but that's not really relevant. The consumer doesn't care who owns the brand, they care about what the brand represents.

Bethesda aren't trying to hoodwink anyone, and it would be foolish to try. They've been forthright about planned changes to Fallout gaming mechanics.

Actually, no. They've been trying to disguise it as if VATS is just as good as turn-based combat, offering the same tactical choices and whatnot. They had also claimed for a while that 'maybe' third-person perspective would be playable. There are more of these examples around. Only lately have they been going 'Pft, those Fallout fans are all stuck in the past and need to grow up'.

 

[Jidai Geki]

Yes it is. If you're going to make a comeback, do it right.

No, it is not. "Alright" may be frequently used and is listed in some dictionaries as an 'informal' equivalent, but it is a misspelling whose use is propagated by certain authors using it.

See New Coke. Yes, I know, still the same company, but that's not really relevant. The consumer doesn't care who owns the brand, they care about what the brand represents.

It's still the same company, which is entirely relevant. If the original developers got hold of the licence and pumped out a mediocre game, I'm sure you still wouldn't be able to move for the praise lavished upon it from the majority of 'old school' Fallout fans.

Actually, no. They've been trying to disguise it as if VATS is just as good as turn-based combat, offering the same tactical choices and whatnot. They had also claimed for a while that 'maybe' third-person perspective would be playable. There are more of these examples around. Only lately have they been going 'Pft, those Fallout fans are all stuck in the past and need to grow up'.

Third person perspective is playable. It has been stated on multiple occasions that an over-the-shoulder third person view will be available.

As for those sinister and devious characters over at Bethsoft deceiving us all over the VATS thing, this is taken from a Bethsoft forum fan interview about new game mechanics:

Probably better if I give you a closer look at how we approach it and view VATS. First, I don’t see it as an either-or thing. VATS is meant to be used with real-time, it’s not one or the other – they should feel like they go together. I don’t want the fans confused that this is turn-based, because it’s not.

Obviously, they're not going to say "VATS is inferior to turn-based combat" because they're replacing turn-based combat with real-time and VATS, and they want to sell it to the fans.

 

[Sander]

No, it is not. "Alright" may be frequently used and is listed in some dictionaries as an 'informal' equivalent, but it is a misspelling whose use is propagated by certain authors using it.

It's in the bleeding dictionary. It's a word. You can say it's a non-standard or informal word, but it's still a word since it's in the dictionary.

It's still the same company, which is entirely relevant. If the original developers got hold of the licence and pumped out a mediocre game, I'm sure you still wouldn't be able to move for the praise lavished upon it from the majority of 'old school' Fallout fans.

Yeah, or you could. People were also critical of Arcanum, ToEE and Vampire: Bloodlines.
Again: the consumer does not care who owns the brand, they really only care about what it represents. You can try to weasel out of that by suggesting that your estimation of what would happen is fact, but that's bullshit.

Third person perspective is playable. It has been stated on multiple occasions that an over-the-shoulder third person view will be available.

Thank you for confirming what I just said. They had claimed for a while that third-person *top-down* perspective will be available. And in this interview they say that it won't be playable.

As for those sinister and devious characters over at Bethsoft deceiving us all over the VATS thing, this is taken from a Bethsoft forum fan interview about new game mechanics:

Probably better if I give you a closer look at how we approach it and view VATS. First, I don’t see it as an either-or thing. VATS is meant to be used with real-time, it’s not one or the other – they should feel like they go together. I don’t want the fans confused that this is turn-based, because it’s not.

Obviously, they're not going to say "VATS is inferior to turn-based combat" because they're replacing turn-based combat with real-time and VATS, and they want to sell it to the fans.

Good job there, bucko, taking the most recent interview you could find when I was clearly talking about older interviews.

 

[Jidai Geki]

It's in the bleeding dictionary. It's a word. You can say it's a non-standard or informal word, but it's still a word since it's in the dictionary.

By the way, "alright" is not a real word.

There are a great many words included in the dictionary that technically stray from 'correct' English, but are included for the sake of completeness. "Alright" is one such word.

Yeah, or you could. People were also critical of Arcanum, ToEE and Vampire: Bloodlines.
Again: the consumer does not care who owns the brand, they really only care about what it represents. You can try to weasel out of that by suggesting that your estimation of what would happen is fact, but that's bullshit.

Your own assertion is your opinion, not fact. I could just as easily claim that it is "bullshit", but I happen to consider blithely slinging profanities around as not really becoming of a debate.

Thank you for confirming what I just said. They had claimed for a while that third-person *top-down* perspective will be available. And in this interview they say that it won't be playable.

They had also claimed for a while that 'maybe' third-person perspective would be playable.

Perhaps you should qualify your statements so as to avoid confusion. You didn't specify *top-down* third person perspective.

Good job there, bucko, taking the most recent interview you could find when I was clearly talking about older interviews.

They've been trying to disguise it as if VATS is just as good as turn-based combat, offering the same tactical choices and whatnot.

I'm sorry, your choice of tense confused me. Obviously, you meant "they were trying to disguise it".

 

[Sander]

There are a great many words included in the dictionary that technically stray from 'correct' English, but are included for the sake of completeness. "Alright" is one such word.

*sigh*
Stop being a moron. The distinction between 'real' word and 'unreal' word only exists in your mind. If the word is in the dictionary, it's a word. Full stop. You can whine all you want, but that's simply how it works.

Your own assertion is your opinion, not fact. I could just as easily claim that it is "bullshit", but I happen to consider blithely slinging profanities around as not really becoming of a debate.

Good counterpoint.
Oh wait, it isn't a counterpoint at all.
Again, I'll cite the example of New Coke. People don't care who owns the brand, they care about what it represents. New Coke shows this perfectly.

 

[Jidai Geki]

*sigh*
Stop being a moron. The distinction between 'real' word and 'unreal' word only exists in your mind. If the word is in the dictionary, it's a word. Full stop. You can whine all you want, but that's simply how it works.

Nice flame. We're just going to have to disagree on this and move on.

Good counterpoint.
Oh wait, it isn't a counterpoint at all.
Again, I'll cite the example of New Coke. People don't care who owns the brand, they care about what it represents. New Coke shows this perfectly.

Repeating what you've already said isn't really a counterpoint either. As for New Coke: see Diet Coke.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke would all be classed as spinoffs if we revert back to talking about games. None of them were meant to replace the original product.

Face it FO3, isn't Classic Coke, it isn't even New Coke, it's Pepsi in a Coke bottle.

 

[Jidai Geki]

Diet Coke, Cherry Coke, Vanilla Coke would all be classed as spinoffs if we revert back to talking about games. None of them were meant to replace the original product.

Face it FO3, isn't Classic Coke, it isn't even New Coke, it's Pepsi in a Coke bottle.

I would maintain the optimistic outlook that it's still too early to write Fallout 3 off.

 

[quietfanatic]

Ad hominem attacks are for cool, interesting people with style. By the way, "alright" is not a real word.

You are one of the few people I can remember encountering with a nice writing style and vocabulary, but who doesn't know the meaning of some common words. The observation comes with the implicit advice that you should read more or pick up a dictionary if you are unsure about something. My own writing can be pretty terrible and clunky in part due to my Aussie education [e.g. no grammar training], but I do try to improve. My favourite dictionary is Oxford.

alright

→ adjective
, adverb , & exclamation variant spelling of all right.
(USAGE The merging of all and right to form the one-word spelling alright is not recorded until the end of the 19th century (unlike other similar merged spellings such as altogether and already, which date from much earlier). There is no logical reason for insisting on all right as two words, when other single-word forms such as altogether have long been accepted. Nevertheless it is still considered by many people to be unacceptable in formal writing.)
_________________

key

→ adjective
of crucial importance
_________________

real

→ adjective
1. actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed


The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition). Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. 21 September 2007 http://www.oxfordreference.com

There are a great many words included in the dictionary that technically stray from 'correct' English, but are included for the sake of completeness. "Alright" is one such word.

If a word gains currency amongst a large number of educated people (even if it doesn’t but let's not go there just now), it is a real word whether you like it or not. Languages are dynamic and not defined by dictionaries, although it will enter a dictionary afterwards. Some book may state what is ‘correct’, but it is the way language is used that is important. If you start talking to a serious linguist, they will laugh if you complain about the evolution of the English language (although they would also recommend that you pick up a dictionary from time to time.)

If my question is so "silly", by all means don't bother to answer it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

The point of my "stupid hypothetical" was to point out that character creation is very important to Fallout, and indeed it is important to most RPG's. Can you have an RPG without character creation? I suppose so, although they don't tend to be as engaging.

In spite of the slant people put on their arguments, I would say that virtually everyone here believes that character creation is very important to Fallout, but I don’t think you know that. The problem was your overemphasis on it, especially in regard to RPG’s generally. Some people might like a great variety of choice before they even start to play, but then I would emphasise choice rather than the tool to achieve it.

On the faithful sequel, I think it is apparent that they are more interested in high sales to a larger market than consistency with the originals. People might like something that is very different, such that Fallout becomes a new brand, but they could empathise with old fans who feel abandoned. I don't like Coke that much so I might be more likely to buy a totally different product with the same name.