I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.

[Jidai Geki]

Your point was irrelevant, it is a different medium! What makes a good film sequel doesn't necessarily apply to games. But just remember it wasn't billed as Alien 2 but Aliens.

Another swing, another miss. And it makes absolutely no difference that it wasn't called "Alien 2".

The medium is entirely irrelevant to my point, which I'll restate once again: a franchise, of any medium, can change hands to the point where nobody or virtually nobody involved with the original is involved. Despite this, it can be successful and faithful to the original.

Hmmm- you choose Aliens as the sequel to Alien, but don't include Alien 3 (which I liked) the less impressive Alien 4, and then there was Alien vs Predator.

Of all the elements of this franchise- which has lasted the longest and is the most respected- Probably Alien and Aliens.

Alien vs Predator- stupid for some, fun for others. But was it memorable?

I see your analogy, and it's a good one- is Fallout 3 destined to be a flash-in-the-pan mainstream hit that vanishes within a year or two? I would probably agree with you here. Of all the games I have ever played, the only two I go back to to play regularly are Fallouts 1 & 2. I haven't seen anything in years that has their staying power.

 

[Rupert]

No.
Counter-question: can FO3 be a good sequel by not sticking to FO's core?

Yes.

 

[Black]

Wow, reflexes...
Anyway, if bethesda doesn't care about FO's core and core-less FO can be a good sequel then I guess this http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/album_page.php?pic_id=2517
also is a good sequel.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Another swing, another miss.

Yep indeed. Learn to communicate better, because how are people supposed to get it from,

Major stylistic changes can be made to a franchise without burying it.

talking about major stylistic changes are a long way from talking about different teams can go in different directions while staying true to the original.

And it makes absolutely no difference that it wasn't called "Alien 2".

Yes it does, the title gives you expectations. If I had gone into the cinema to see a film called Alien 2 my expectations would of been totally different. It's a subtle difference but still a difference.

The medium is entirely irrelevant to my point, which I'll restate once again: a franchise, of any medium, can change hands to the point where nobody or virtually nobody involved with the original is involved. Despite this, it can be successful and faithful to the original.

I don't disagree, but that wasn't what you said in the first place, and it is totally irrelevant because it is a different medium! And Bethesda aren't staying faithful to the originals, because the gameplay has changed for a start. This is a direct sequel not a spin off, yet the gameplay is totally different. When you go to watch a film, that's it. You get entertained (hopefully) and told/shown a story, but when you play a game how you play is as important. Just because it's an rpg doesn't mean that combat mechanics and viewpoint are interchangable.

Aliens might of changed the pace of the films, but it didn't rewrite the xenomorphs. It didn't change the setting to have ftl ships, the androids were still full of white gunk. It was still recognizable as being in the same fictional universe. Nothing released about Fallout 3 has quite rung true, changing the gameplay is more than changing the direction of a movie.

 

[wolfblack]

I personally feel that Fallout 3 will be a great addition to the series. When you think about it, Bethesda was one of only two companies I know of that could pull off Fallout 3 (the other being BioWare, who is currently busy with other projects). The fact of the matter is, Bethesda hasn't ONLY made Oblivion... They've done Star Trek, Pirates of the Caribbean, racing games, strategy games, survival horror... Hell, they even did a horse racing sim!

And besides, a first-person Fallout isn't that bad when you consider the lead designer led System Shock 2 (a cult classic FPS/RPG/Survival Horror title set in space). And from what I've read and heard from interviews, it will be true to the spirit and setting of Fallout and the main theme of Fallout 3 will be the overshadowing theme of the whole series; Humanity stripped down to the basics of survival.

I'd just like to add that I am not a die-hard fan of Bethesda, I'm just saying that they're the best available company to do the job.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I personally feel that Fallout 3 will be a great addition to the series. When you think about it, Bethesda was one of only two companies I know of that could pull off Fallout 3 (the other being BioWare, who is currently busy with other projects).

Neither company have made anything like Fallout, certainly not recently if ever. So by that logic just about any developer would have the same chance to pull off Fallout 3.

They've done Star Trek, Pirates of the Caribbean, racing games, strategy games, survival horror... Hell, they even did a horse racing sim!

And just ask Star Trek fans what they think of Legacy.

And besides, a first-person Fallout isn't that bad when you consider the lead designer led System Shock 2 (a cult classic FPS/RPG/Survival Horror title set in space).

Which has what to do with Fallout?

And from what I've read and heard from interviews, it will be true to the spirit and setting of Fallout and the main theme of Fallout 3 will be the overshadowing theme of the whole series; Humanity stripped down to the basics of survival.

Oh boy.

 

[wolfblack]

Neither company have made anything like Fallout, certainly not recently if ever. So by that logic just about any developer would have the same chance to pull off Fallout 3.

How about BioWare making freaking Neverwinter Nights? Also, quite a few of BioWare's staff were some of the former Black Isle Studios team, who of course, made the first two Fallouts. As for the significance of the Bethesda project leader having led System Shock 2, System Shock was an awesome RPG, while it was also a good FPS.

I don't see what's bad about Fallout 3 being in a first person perspective, as I personally think a first-person view makes the game more personal, like an RPG should be. Making you feel like you're really there. And besides, it's not like they really changed anything but graphics and combat. I know people are sensitive to wanting the series to stay exactly the same, but that's no way to allow your favorite series to develop, will it? And besides, without Bethesda picking the series up, Fallout would never continue and you'd have to live with Fallout: PoS being the last game in the series, which really isn't much to remember the series by, is it?

I personally love the first two Fallouts in almost every aspect, which is why I'm enthusiastic when a company picks up the series from death. Because it at least gives hope that you'll see more of the world you love to play in, The Nuclear Wasteland of Fallout.

 

[zioburosky13]

I don't see what's bad about Fallout 3 being in a first person perspective, as I personally think a first-person view makes the game more personal, like an RPG should be. Making you feel like you're really there. And besides, it's not like they really changed anything but graphics and combat. I know people are sensitive to wanting the series to stay exactly the same, but that's no way to allow your favorite series to develop, will it? And besides, without Bethesda picking the series up, Fallout would never continue and you'd have to live with Fallout: PoS being the last game in the series, which really isn't much to remember the series by, is it?

http://nma-fallout.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=7

 

[Ashmo]

Please tell me you're not trying to educate the regulars about where the FO dev team went and what company did what games...

Also, please educate yourself before starting another "but first person is so much more IMMERSIVE" debate. This point has been disproved ad absurdum because it's one of the official marketing quips of Beth.

As for the "without Beth there'd be no Fallout 3", please educate yourself about the circumstances of Beth's acquiring of the license and the canning of the project "Van Buren". Hint: Beth wasn't the only company expressing interest in the license.

 

[wolfblack]

Hint: Beth wasn't the only company expressing interest in the license.

Yeah, but Beth probably is the only company available to do it that won't slaughter it to oblivion. (bad pun, I know. ) At least they're fans of the first two Fallouts. If another company got it, they'd probably just make a graphically-enhanced version of PoS. Or maybe just Grand Theft Auto set in a Post-Apocalyptic desert. xD

 

[Snowguy]

Trokia's people were not only fans of Fallout, but some of them were also it's creator's. Also, when they were still around, they expressed interest with the license. And while I can't speak for everyone in their development wing, I don't think that the majority of the staff currently making FO3 were fans until they started making the game.

 

[Black]

Yeah, but Beth probably is the only company available to do it that won't slaughter it to oblivion

So Obsidian would slaugter FO? Interesting.

At least they're fans of the first two Fallouts

That's funny, first we had FO3 devs responding "no" when they were asked if they have played Fallout, now there aren't even asking them that.

If another company got it, they'd probably just make a graphically-enhanced version of PoS

Jesus Christ, that sounds almost exactly like Fallout 3 by bethesda! Inability to recreate FO mechanics, style, world- full PoS

 

[wolfblack]

So Obsidian would slaugter FO? Interesting.
That's funny, first we had FO3 devs responding "no" when they were asked if they have played Fallout, now there aren't even asking them that. Jesus Christ, that sounds almost exactly like Fallout 3 by bethesda! Inability to recreate FO mechanics, style, world- full PoS

Yes. I believe Obsidian would slaughter FO. They didn't exactly do a stellar job with KOTOR 2 and NWN2, did they...? I play games for something new. With my experience from playing Obsidian games, they just pretty-fy the old, and make barely any efforts above that.

While, yes, Bethesda is not making the isometric RPG most of the Fallout fandom wants so much, they're trying to develop the franchise. And as for FO3 developer's saying 'no' when asked whether they played Fallout, that's rather funny... I've read up on all the interviews and all I've read and heard is that they, like us, STILL play Fallout, they just want to know what the main fanbase wants to keep if the game system changes.

Thus, the only way Bethesda made a mistake was deciding to give FO fans the sequel they've been wanting for 10 years, who are stuck with wanting EVERYTHING exactly the same. The only reason most Fallout fans don't like Bethesda is because they want more of the same from Fallout 3, while Bethesda tends to like reinventing the wheel (successes and failures of the process included). Even if FO3 doesn't turn out spectacular, they can learn from it and make a better FO4.

 

[Black]

Yes. I believe Obsidian would slaughter FO. They didn't exactly do a stellar job with KOTOR 2 and NWN2, did they...? I play games for something new. With my experience from playing Obsidian games, they just pretty-fy the old, and make barely any efforts above that.

KOTOR 1 and 2 were much, muuuch better crpgs than Oblivion and Morrowind. Sure, they needed to hurry up with KOTOR 2 at the end but I blame LucasArts for pushing them. Besides HK-47 alone had more depth than Morrowind and Oblivion together.

While, yes, Bethesda is not making the isometric RPG most of the Fallout fandom wants so much

Nice try, no dice. They aren't making FO3 isometric when isometric is part of FO's core design. Just like turn-based combat. It's not just what fans want, it's what Fallout is.

I've read up on all the interviews and all I've read and heard is that they, like us, STILL play Fallout

Funny indeed because Todd said they're all Fallout fans and then it turned out even, for example, lead art designer hasn't ever played Fallout.

Even if FO3 doesn't turn out spectacular, they can learn from it and make a better FO4.

Don't blame IP for PoS- they could learn from it and make a better PoS 2.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

How about BioWare making freaking Neverwinter Nights?

And how does a construction set with one of the most panned single player experiences have anything to do with Fallout?

Also, quite a few of BioWare's staff were some of the former Black Isle Studios team, who of course, made the first two Fallouts.

Black Isle didn't even exist when Fallout was dreamed up, and Fallout 2 was a pale shadow of the first game. Not exactly a good pedigree there.

As for the significance of the Bethesda project leader having led System Shock 2, System Shock was an awesome RPG, while it was also a good FPS.

System Shock 2 is not an rpg!

I don't see what's bad about Fallout 3 being in a first person perspective, as I personally think a first-person view makes the game more personal, like an RPG should be. Making you feel like you're really there. And besides, it's not like they really changed anything but graphics and combat. I know people are sensitive to wanting the series to stay exactly the same, but that's no way to allow your favorite series to develop, will it?

Changing the viewpoint and the gameplay doesn't make it a sequel, it doesn'y mean they are developing the series. It just means they are doing the only thing they know how. Change doesn't mean progression, it just means change. That's not developing the series, developing would be to take what's there and improve it, not tear it down and start over. Why bother buying the licence if you are going to make such fundemental changes? Gameplay is important and not interchangable just because the industry hasn't properly defined the meaning of RPG. Your preference for first person is just that a preference. If you prefer to be stuck in the past with boring old first person that's up to you, there are plenty of games that'll cater to you. Me I prefer a more innovative approach.

And besides, without Bethesda picking the series up, Fallout would never continue and you'd have to live with Fallout: PoS being the last game in the series, which really isn't much to remember the series by, is it?

Most people would remember the series by the greatest entry, not the sad spinoff that failed miserably.

I personally love the first two Fallouts in almost every aspect, which is why I'm enthusiastic when a company picks up the series from death. Because it at least gives hope that you'll see more of the world you love to play in, The Nuclear Wasteland of Fallout.

Sorry but the world of Fallout is only part of the appeal, if the setting is all you care about there are several post apocalyptic games coming out. Why resurect Fallout and turn it into a zombie when there's fresh meat to be had? Better to let it die peacefully.

Yeah, but Beth probably is the only company available to do it that won't slaughter it to oblivion. (bad pun, I know. ) At least they're fans of the first two Fallouts. If another company got it, they'd probably just make a graphically-enhanced version of PoS. Or maybe just Grand Theft Auto set in a Post-Apocalyptic desert. xD

Graphically-enhanced version of POS? I thought that was what Beth are doing. Given their track record with the Eldar Scrolls series, their own IP, they are the last people I would of wanted to pick up Fallout.

Thus, the only way Bethesda made a mistake was deciding to give FO fans the sequel they've been wanting for 10 years, who are stuck with wanting EVERYTHING exactly the same. The only reason most Fallout fans don't like Bethesda is because they want more of the same from Fallout 3, while Bethesda tends to like reinventing the wheel (successes and failures of the process included).

Changed gameplay, changed viewpoint, inconsistancy with established canon, stupid extras, this isn't the sequel we are looking for.

Even if FO3 doesn't turn out spectacular, they can learn from it and make a better FO4.

Fuck I hope not, I'd rather the series die than see it futher degraded.

 

[Roshambo]

I'm surprised you guys have let a one-post moronic troll get this far. Too bad a few others seem to have benefited from the US Public Education System: "Todd Howard owns Fallout and is God so he thinks for me!"

Fucking retards also think that anything with stats makes a CRPG. Get a clue. CRPG is clearly defined choice and consequences based on the abilities of the character. The only ability required from the player is the ability to play the game.

Fallout 3's design offers none of that.


First, CRPGs are in the Adventure genre. Adventure encompasses all games that have a defined story arc, story interaction (be it linear, player-progressive, or story-progressive) and environment manipulation. They generally are given varying degrees of detail of those aspects, but can be easily defined. Here are the three that are most mistakenly considered "CRPGS":

"Action RPG": This is simply an Action-Adventure game that probably has little to do with your character's abilities, and more of the player's reflexes. Character abilities are then provided in some form, like progressing in spells. Some Dungeon Crawlers can fit this description as well, if they have reflex-driven gameplay.

Dungeon Crawler: This implies heavy combat, but as noted before, may either be reflex or character-driven. Temple of Elemental Evil, Daggerfall, and Planescape: Torment are perhaps the best examples of this genre.

Computer Role-Playing Game: The progression of the genre through the exploration of a detailed world environment (Ultima and Might and Magic), the complexity of morals and social interaction (Ultima, Might and Magic, Wizardry, Wasteland, many others onward), the ability for the player's decisions for the character to influence other characters and the story.

Simply put, it needs to feel like a world, but still simulated in some parts.

They are absolutely turn-based, as they rely entirely on the character's ability, and that is how the PEN AND PAPER RPGS were handled. You know, like from where Fallout takes its roots. It is the player who takes the part of the puppeteer, who makes and develops the character upon their designs and within the setting. It is their choice and the resulting consequences that have been the meat of the genre since Ultima IV introduced them. Wasteland, and then Fallout, complimented each with their moral choices.

The only skill/affect the player should have on the game is the ability to play the game. Which is the same for any game, but this is wholly about playing a character and dealing with the outcome of those choices. That IS the genre, and how Fallout was designed. I don't give a shit what a lying publisher, a press kit media whore, or a random forum stain wants to define differently. A stat system does not make a CRPG, as a stat system is usually indicative of a game tailored around depth.

Too bad that some asshats like Bethesda like abusing that concept and don't bother to really come through with the good. Compared to the depth found in Ultima, a game 15 years agp. Bethesda is FUCKING CLOWNSHOES.

Peter Hiney and Toddler have no fucking clue about their own industry to make their claims. They still live in denial of Daggerfall or anything else decent in the genre but what is modern and trendy they can rip off. Such as...BioShock! I bet they were BUSY taking notes from that one.

Because, you know, bewbs make Howard the Coward giggle and think of lunch.

As for the fucktard who thinks FP makes for a better CRPG, despite that it's really only good for action-based games and dungeon crawlers that go into turn-based combat, a round of Virtual Jerk-Off sounds like your speed and depth of a CRPG, so go enjoy and forget you ever signed up here. If you fail to note a game series' design, then you're just another apologetic idiot that has failed to note over 20 years of proven industry history.

Now go apply to Bethesda as a marketing lackey. You sound about their speed.

 

[xdarkyrex]

How come you must consistently imply that people who agree with Bethsoft are either obsequious sycophantic, Rosh?

It's possible those people could also have been struck by apathy or shit-taste as well.
Come now.

 

[Roshambo]

How come you must consistently imply that people who agree with Bethsoft are either obsequious sycophantic, Rosh?

Now, now...I'm not above getting a moron a job alongside other morons where they belong.

It's possible those people could also have been struck by apathy or shit-taste as well.
Come now.

And if they collect up with other morons, perhaps a meteor may conveniently strike their building. Or even more amusingly, a terminal rupture of the raw sewage lines under their building and geysers all the industry noobs out of the windows in a comic shitstorm of Biblical proportions.

We all have our dreams...

 

[TheWesDude]

when making a RPG, you have to get a LOT of elements right.

you CAN do a FPP RPG but it just makes it that much harder because you have to reinforce and get the rest of it done much better than someone who does Iso type views simply because of the options and abilities inherent.

but sadly all beth has proven lately they can do the FPP thing right, but nothing else.

thats why beths RPGs are shit.

 

[Roshambo]

The best FP RPGs ever:
Gold Box
Silver Box
Ultima in dungeon view.
Wasteland
Might and Magic

Suspiciously, all had TB combat when they made themselves popular.