Interplay announces Fallout 3 licensing deal with Bethesda

[Roshambo]

I admire MCA as a game-maker, but not as a dev on Fallout. Which is why New Reno is a fantastic CRPG town, but a lousy Fallout town. Just like van Buren might have been a great game, except for some of the factors I named above, but not a great Fallout

That is entirely the point, Kharn. We're now on the fourth developer that has claimed to be a Fallout fan and has a chance up at bat (fifth, if you count Van Buren). Given that each time the game's setting has suffered a bit, of the released games only Fallout 2's had good design though much of it was misplaced.

Bethesda looks like they understand some aspects good for their genre (and I'm not talking about "lump everything with stats into the CRPG genre" definition), but when it comes down to it, their design preferences are much further away. Plus, it might turn into another "hairy deathclaw" or some other mangling of the setting, as they don't have the artistic direction of those who designed it before. Sure, some of us do understand the design more than others, but that's because we've literally taken apart the game and have spoken with the developers at great length. We also don't want everything to be restructured so it seems to be like everything else. That's why people have been getting quite disenfranchised with the Final Fantasy games, because they were just rehashed, formulaic, and quite dull - so then they had to put out a couple of story sequels, however...uh...yeah.

But then again, it appears a lot of people like Fallout CRPG, else the news wouldn't be this wide-spreading. Huh...then why would those fans want to play something besides what they got into the series for?

I'm not trying to say that Bethesda is full of bad developers. On the contrary, but what they look to be offering is just a bit...misplaced towards the Fallout setting and the purpose of its originally intended design to be a P&P RPG on computer (hence the term, CRPG, and why Fallout is held to be an example of how the genre is to be done even by PC Gamer), especially when they don't give word to the contrary and of course, the PR guy.

I know you don't need to have read this, Kharn, but I'm closing up a few parallels for some people.

 

[Darque]

This makes me sad. Why couldn't they build off of the work in progress?

Because it's not what they do well.

Hey...

I smell a new motto. Can someone with some photoshop skills work up a logo?

"Bethesda Softworks: It's not what we do well"

LOL I've been thinking of changing my sig.. can I use that?

 

[Role-Player]

This makes me sad. Why couldn't they build off of the work in progress?

Because it's not what they do well.

Hey...

I smell a new motto. Can someone with some photoshop skills work up a logo?

"Bethesda Softworks: It's not what we do well"

LOL I've been thinking of changing my sig.. can I use that?

You're only limited by your conscience

 

[Darque]

well I don't want to just take someone elses quote without asking :p

 

[victor]

Everyone make a new avatar.

*ZING!*

 

[Per]

There's also the point that Bethsoft don't know how to do a FO style game. They are suggesting first person real time, becuase that's all they know how to do. The gmaes you mention, were changed purely for artistic and stylistic reasons, by the original devs. Bethsoft are not making that choice here - they simply don't have the tech, apparantly, for an isometric game, nor do they know how to do turn based - that's the impression I get.

And that is why they must die!

Er, say something so I'm not spamming... um...

Actually, for some time now I have thought of Van Buren as the "real" Fallout 3. I was sceptical about it back when all that could be seen was Sawyer's rules decisions filtered through the newsflashes at NMA: for every one of them that made sense there seemed to be one I didn't agree with or which seemed motivated by the designer's sense of aesthetics rather than its impact on the game. I did perk up quite a bit at the screenshots, though, and what little I learned of the plot wasn't discouraging. I can't really change my mind because someone says, "You'd change your mind if you knew what I know, but I won't tell you what it is."

Also I don't see exactly why people idolize Troika on account of Arcanum (rather than the original Fallout). While that game was playable and enjoyable it was a disappointment in many ways, with some seriously crappy design in it. As a CRPG it was on the same level as Baldur's Gate or KoToR, not that of P:T or the Fallouts.

 

[Brother None]

"You'd change your mind if you knew what I know, but I won't tell you what it is."

I know. I don't expect you too. It's a shame be no one will ever know what VB would have been

But look at just the facts I listed. No secret info there. Van Buren was being developed under very bad circumstances.

This is why, on the long run, the loss of Baldur's Gate 3 was a great shame for CRPG history, the loss of Fallout 3 wasn't

 

[Briosafreak]

Per send me your mail and i`ll try to give you some info, so you`ll see how some things in the game were very doubtfull, but why in the end Kharn is wrong and it would be a good Isometric Turn Based game with many more choices than the others retaining some of the best features , particularly from Fallout1.

 

[Per]

I can probably use that for consolation. (Edit: that was in reply to Kharn's post.) I'd ask about Torn, but we're getting a little off topic.

Btw, Darque, wouldn't "I want Herve Caen's head on a pike!" work as a sig, or did you do that one already?

 

[Darque]

I might, though all things Herve Caen are so yesterday

Bethseda (sp as I never get it right) seems to be the best target now

 

[Brother None]

Per send me your mail and i`ll try to give you some info, so you`ll see how some things in the game were very doubtfull, but why in the end Kharn is wrong and it would be a good Isometric Turn Based game with many more choices than the others retaining some of the best features , particularly from Fallout1.

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually shown *any* proof for this. I know you're a big fan of Van Buren, but ask yourself, seriously and neutrally, why you are a big fan of that projected game

 

[Taintspore]

:!: ATTENTION: This post is flamebait. :!:

Flamebait it may be but I think it should be said, from a strictly technical standpoint 3rd person (over the shoulder) would not necessarily be a bad thing. I'm not saying make it real time and action oriented, rather that everything else being kept the same and that one aspect could be changed without taking away from the game (don't get me wrong, I would prefer an isometric rotatable camera with a smidge of angle control and maybe a slight zoom capability).

If you need an example of what I mean by this, look at Full Spectrum Warrior. I know it's real time, but the cursor based movement is what I'm getting at here. In FSW, you have a cursor that you move out from the characters, placing it where you want them to move, then pushing the go button they move to that point and the camera follows them. In terms of camera control FSW has the camera locked on the character but you can move it around to whatever angle you like and it is completely independent of the characters facing (you can also change the facing in FSW quite easily, just point the camera and push the appropriate key). Also, you never have direct control over your soldiers (you can't move the guns manually) but you give them instructions.

Unless you've played or seen this game in action, I'm more than likely not making any sense so I'll try a little harder, but if I lose anyone just let me know and I'll try to clear it up further.

Now back to what I was saying. You don't get direct control over your character's finer movements. You select an enemy to fire at, and your soldiers fire without you needing to keep holding the fire button kind of thing.

I still don't think I'm being clear, so I'll try one last time: basically, you bring up a certain command type, you go through the details (for movement you bring up the movement cursor and point it to where you want them to go, for combat you bring up the fire sector and tell them who to shoot or what area to watch for enemies) then confirm it and it's then your team does it. Although the game is on the Xbox (don't crucify me for playing a console, I have them all but I'm a PC gamer first, I grew up on PC's, and maybe contrary to popular belief design components can be transfered between the consoles and PC without losing anything and keeping them intelligent) and real time, I do believe that some of the design aspects of FSW could be implemented easily in turn based combat and applied to fallout without losing the feel (technical standpoint not artistic, FO would definitely lose something if it weren't isometric) of the combat from FO.

Before you flame the hell out of me (I'm expecting quite a bit to tell you the truth) just think about what I'm trying to get across and if need be look at FSW (I don't care if you don't like the setting/story/graphics and the like, that's not what I'm getting at, hell, if you have an Xbox rent it and all will become immediately clear).

I just have one request: don't tell me I'm not a true FO fan. I love FO just as much and maybe more than most of you. I won't say I'm "FO's #1 fan" because I know I'm not, but when I picked up FO (the first time, somehow I managed to end up with three copies of the first and second games) I was playing it on a top of the line P90 ( I'm beginning to feel old, my back hurts and I can't see the screen, holy crap 21 is a rough age) which means (for those of you that have only been in the gaming community for a short time) that I picked it up when it first came out. I've played the first many times and the second not so many times and count myself among the legion of FO fanatics (somewhere near the front, but not too near because I tend not to be too vocal as you can probably see from the number of posts I've made).

So, to sum up: The camera could be changed without too much damage being done to the game (technical, not talking artistically here).

Kharn/Odin/Roshambo, I'd also like to hear what you have to say (rip this apart as is your right. But be gentle, it's fragile ).

 

[Roshambo]

How about "BANNED" as you obviously haven't read anything before, nor why the first-person or over-the-shoulder viewpoints do not work with Fallout's design as a P&P RPG taken to computer? It affects so many other elements of the design, it just doesn't stop there. It also goes against the artistic style of Fallout, which was designed in that perspective for a very good reason. A reason that you and others have failed to understand, as you'd probably need to get paper cuts from the pulp loading screens to get that design point.

If you're not going to bother to read the discussion and just post whatever garbage you feel like without any regard towards those who are tired of having to repeat themselves to every new clueless newbie that jumps into the discussion, I can remove you.

 

[Sander]

<Disclaimer>I apologize if this has been said before, I have read this entire thread, but I cannot account for what has been said on the rest of the forum.</Disclaimer>

I wonder if turnbased is even possible if the game is made with a first person view in mind. Not only would you loose all perspective and the ability to get a good view of the situation from first person, the entire fact that you're looking through the eyes of one of the character seems to be standing in the way of making a turn-based system really possible.
Even if the possibility of first person view is available, this will probably stand in the way of a good turn-based system. Because if you have the possibility of first person view you are obliged to cater to it. This means that you have to make the game playable from a first person perspective, but making the game playable from a first-person perspective and at the same time retain that turn-based combat style seems to be quite impossible.
So then what? There's the free-swing camera. That is what I'd prefer, because it would allow other people to play the game from their preferred perspective, while allowing us, the Fallout fans, to play it from the isometric perspective. Of course, the option to lock the camera should be there, but that shouldn't be hard to create.
First person view is not baneful in itself, but first person view will destroy the entire Fallout system if allowed to enter the process.

 

[PsychoSniper]

Personaly, I wish they would simply use the FO/FO2 engine.


If it aint broke, dont fix it,.

 

[Roshambo]

Sander

It goes on for a few posts down on that same page, too.

 

[Briosafreak]

I'm sorry, but you haven't actually shown *any* proof for this. I know you're a big fan of Van Buren, but ask yourself, seriously and neutrally, why you are a big fan of that projected game

Actually i`ve been avoiding to discuss this since we`re supposed to be focused on Bethesda. But i`m curious as to why do you think that i`m not beeing impartial when saying that Van Buren had potential and although with many flaws i don`t see the problems you`re bringing?

 

[Brother None]

Actually i`ve been avoiding to discuss this since we`re supposed to be focused on Bethesda. But i`m curious as to why do you think that i`m not beeing impartial when saying that Van Buren had potential and although with many flaws i don`t see the problems you`re bringing?

Mostly because some of the flaws were trather too big to ignore. If I look at the big picture of what they were planning to do, what they were forced to do and the time in which they could do it, I was expecting more of a crappy bugfest than a game-of-the-year type game.

 

[battlepoet]

That's amusing, where should I start?

MMVI, remember that one castle...the one where everyone curses the stupid people who thought that was a good idea? Or how about their decisions to go RT and TB in the same system, which pretty much killed off the series. Then let's go into the mechanics, where spells and arrows are FUCKING USELESS in RT, due to how the enemies have to move in order to prevent it from becoming pure cheese. In TB, you and the enemies have no option but to take each and every missile or spell hit. That was the prime piece of game imbalances and cheese that started to piss off the fans.

HOMM? Number IV was loathed because it changed its formula.

Ultima is perhaps the best example, despite your apparent dislike for the game. Perhaps it was because they first made a world, enhancing the quality of play because of that, then made a crappy platform-esque game that was nicknamed Super Avatar Brothers. Virtue Raider didn't fare much, either. It's funny that you claim it stayed true to its nature when it didn't. Much like M&M, it didn't, and that's when the game series went downhill.

Then there's X-COM, Magic Candle, and many other examples that floods out your feeble attempt to try and expect people to accept that a game can "change format" and keep its spirit. It's wholly ironic that you've picked examples that are precisely the best examples of why it is a piss-poor idea to change the forumla. Ultima had a LARGE following, as did other games. How did that happen? They took what they did before, made some improvements, but generally left the design alone and expanded upon it. That's how sequels work. How sequels fail is when they aren't at all like the originals, and M&MVI was the first indications that the series was going to shit.

Trying to sell a spin-off as a sequel is purely suicidal.

In case you also didn't notice it before, but the graphic style of Fallout, especially in keeping it feeling like a darker pulp, is integral to the game. It would be like turning Ultima into a platform game, again.

Well, you kinda skipped where I more or less agreed that the series eventually failed anyway. HOMM 1, 2 and 3 were great games and completely different format, Turn-Based Strategy vs. TB CRPG.

MMVI could turn into an entirely too long debate so I'll conceded the point to you.

I never liked Ultima because I thought it was a crap story and a ripoff of other games mechanics; they never once came up with anything groundbreaking or new. Every time they changed format it was after someone else had already done a game that way, even the first three were (bad, far as I'm concerned) copies of other games already out and established as good. It was, as far as I'm concerned, the Boy Band of computer games, a slough of formulaic crap bundled up and shot off to the shelves.

I never played the XCOM series so I can't really give any kind of worthwhile commentary on it. I know I missed out, my wife already derided me about never having heard of them until a few years ago. Sometimes things just pass you by.

Wiz VI and VII had a huge change in format and were awesome games. Dune2 was a completely different game than Dune.

I won't argue that most format changes are horribly done and sink a series; I wish MOO3 had never been made. In fact, I see MOO2 in the original box next to MOO3 on the shelves over at EBGames across the street and it sells for 5 bucks more, and it's 9 or 10 years older. I also wont argue that it's a bad idea to change format - I completely agree with you, and thought I said as much, but that's not my point. I will argue that there is a remote possibility that a format change could be good for a series, if done by dedicated people who know and love the game. I don't think Bethesda are those people, though. There's likely a better chance of Simtex ressurecting itself and doing a console version of MOM2 with boobalicious dark elves that rant in korean defeating the space romans in a VR version of Leather Godesses of Phobos.

 

[Roshambo]

Well, you kinda skipped where I more or less agreed that the series eventually failed anyway.

Sorry, but I was concentrating on what led to their eventual demise, even if it took time. Ah, no worries.

I never liked Ultima because I thought it was a crap story and a ripoff of other games mechanics; they never once came up with anything groundbreaking or new. Every time they changed format it was after someone else had already done a game that way, even the first three were (bad, far as I'm concerned) copies of other games already out and established as good. It was, as far as I'm concerned, the Boy Band of computer games, a slough of formulaic crap bundled up and shot off to the shelves.

This is a touch odd, and I'll agree that the first three games weren't much different from others, maybe a bit more eccentric with the design in some aspects, but they were still a bit dull compared to later on.

Ultima IV introduced what could be called the defining moment of CRPGs. While you only had one role to play, you have choices in how to do so and your actions affected the world. This went along until VI, which was pretty damn good in terms of world construction, until VII was heralded as the best CRPG world brought to life. Daggerfall and Morrowind both are full of zombies compared to that game, and I'd say that it has a good amount more community interaction between the NPCs than Fallout. That adds a distinct amount of depth few other games even try for.

I will argue that there is a remote possibility that a format change could be good for a series, if done by dedicated people who know and love the game.

And people who know the artistic design well and it does follow along with the core aspects of the game. Ultima changed a number of times, but that wasn't the focus of the game and never was, instead a focus in creating a believable world and ethos was made, up until they ruined it with 8.

I don't think Bethesda are those people, though. There's likely a better chance of Simtex ressurecting itself and doing a console version of MOM2 with boobalicious dark elves that rant in korean defeating the space romans in a VR version of Leather Godesses of Phobos.

OW! Hey, we're not going for blood (unless you count the ignorant), we're looking for answers.