Nope.
They've already settled on the price point.
800 Microsoft Points.
They've already settled on the price point.
800 Microsoft Points.
Jeff Gardiner and Anchorage screenshots
- Thread starter Per
- Start date
Well Gizmo was so kind to send me some articles, that have to do with Fallout. Its interesting what kind of prospect some people had with certain games, and Fallout in particular. It seems that Emil and Pete had some flair with those games and quite well understood the appeal of past games and what the word Sequel [see Dungeon Keeper 2] really means. I have to say that Dungeon Keeper and Baldurs Gate are some of my favourites.Public said:
Technically, they are staying true to their roots. Bethesda has been making FP action games like FO3 for a long time. I believe that is Emil's background as well.taag said:
And I can't imagine why Lingwei would bring up The Witcher. That's just another combat-obsessed action RPG.
Dionysus said:
Witcher isn't combat obsessed. Naturally, it's got quite the amount of fighting (given the profession of Garret), but the fights are usually short and not annoying if they're not necessary. There's also ways to repel weaker enemies alltogether - just put on a ribbon for the drowners, for example.
Besides, unlike in FO3, there's a number of quests that can be solved without fighting.
Yes, it's combat obsessed. As you pointed out, it has a one-class RPG system, and that class happens to be "monster killer." I don't think there are any speech skills, and the character sheet only really impacts the quickest way to kill the monsters. I like the game, but it's a bad example to use in that context.Ausdoerrt said:
Relatively speaking, I’d say that you’ve got this one backward. FO3 actually has a lot of skills and items that can help you avoid a fight, and the Witcher is absolutely full of “kill-10-monsters” type quests. Both games have lots of combat, but the Witcher has more combat-focused quests, and a character development system that is (almost?) entirely focused on combat.Ausdoerrt said:
TheGM
The voice of reason
MrBumble said:
Think Half-Life 2 aiming while covered in molases and honey.
Dionysus said:
No, I've got it quite strait. A lot of Witcher's main quests could be resolved with minimum amount of fighting. Unlike Fallout, it didn't force you into dungeon crawls to advance the story (with a few exceptions). The "kill 10 monsters" quests were completely optional - and as far as I am concerned, existed as a much more realistic way for the player to get extra cash if needed (instead of throwing non-sensical stashes of loot out at you). Witcher was not "completely full" of those quests, it had a great variety of different side-quests iirc.
It's true that Witcher is an action-rpg, and has quite some combat (naturally). However, claiming that FO3 is a better RPG with better dialogues just because is has the speech skill and Witcher doesn't is like saying that FO3 is a better RPG than Planescape:Torment since PS:T didn't have speech skills either. As far as I'm concerned, the Witcher had much more of "playing out your role" than FO3, and is thus a better RPG. The combat system was much better balanced as well.
The Witcher is based on the novel, where the main character- Geralt, is a pure killer, so the game was designed as an action first, then RPG. I think the developers of The Witcher didn't try to make this the best RPG ever, they wanted to base it on the books, and it turned out that action-RPG is the best choice (probably). Bethesda was saying from the begining that Fallout 3 will be the new-gen RPG, but it turned out to be a simple FPS with RPG elements in RTwP combat.
So CD Project RED did their job, they suceeded, but Bethesda failed...and that counts.
So CD Project RED did their job, they suceeded, but Bethesda failed...and that counts.
Yazman
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Grimhound said:
No "inbreeding" is ever necessary in the vaults due to the reality of human biology... you need at least 80 humans to have a genetically viable population that can maintain itself into the future without encountering inbreeding.. the vaults usually have a thousand or so don't they?
Without the intention to tourn this in to a "Witcher" discussion. But youre supposed to play in the Witcher the role of a "Witcher" just as you have to assume the role of the Nameless one with Planesacpe (Frankly Planescape had a higher quality).Dionysus said:
Thats why you're a monster slayer. Cause you play the "Role" of one. This is I admit somewhat a limit. One that not everyone likes probably as you can more or less only play a fighter and thus only shape the game in such a fashion. But the trick is to assume the role of a Monsterslayer, and roleplay "Gerald from Rivia" and play the game in a way where you imagine what Gerald would do now in such a situation. Would he enter the fight between the factions, or at all costs (even if friends are in danger) stay neutral? Thats why you get hints on Geralds past, that you can assume what he did in similar situations and trying to follow this path, or even do somethint different. That you neither have a "good" or "bad" side is a plus, since no one of those factions you can support is absolutely good or evil. They more or less are all inbetween.
The Witcher is definetly more of a Roleplaying game then Fallout 3 will ever be.
I was talking about the game as a whole. The Witcher has dozens (not an exaggeration) of simple “kill-the-monsters” quests. I don’t remember much of that sort of thing in FO3. FO3 also has a sneaking skill that allows you to get around bad guys as well as a speech skill that can bypass some quests entirely (with dialog options that could be comically replaced with a single line such as "I mean, come ooooonnnn!").Ausdoerrt said:
Yeah, that’s mostly irrelevant, and it's so far from anything that I've said that it seems unfair to even classify it as a strawman. Also, Planescape had 3 character classes, as well as attributes that governed stuff like speech. The character sheet in the Witcher is almost completely unrelated to its most impressive role-playing elements. I’m just saying that it’s not a good game to play if you are looking for pointers on how to work a skill system into an RPG, or if you are trying to keep action elements out of your RPG.Ausdoerrt said:
I only make a point of this because I was genuinely surprised and a little disappointed when I played the Witcher, and it was not at all the fault of the devs. It was the fault of the internet buzz.
Yes, and you play the role of Gordon Freeman in Half Life, so that's a pretty sweet RPG too. You just have to accept that your options are greatly limited because Gordon Freeman would only do one thing in any given situation. Seriously though, you do recognize that this is a limitation for role playing, and it happens to be a much bigger limitation for the Witcher than it is for Planescape. But it isn't really related to FO3 or DLC. I don't think any of us would want a FO to go in this sort of direction.Crni Vuk said:
Will someone please care to enlighthen me about what 'a tactical simulation means'? I always thought that it referred to a gameplay much like the ones found in tactical (fps) games, like Gears of War or Mass Effect. Or even in Ghost Recon: Advanced Fighther.
It seems to be that this tactical simulation would cast the player in the role of squad leader that will his team to victory over the Chinese in the battle for Alaska...
Emil's words about 'gunplay and stealth' could mean a gameplay similar to a MGS game? Or closer to the gameplay in Fallout: Tactics?
It seems to be that this tactical simulation would cast the player in the role of squad leader that will his team to victory over the Chinese in the battle for Alaska...
Emil's words about 'gunplay and stealth' could mean a gameplay similar to a MGS game? Or closer to the gameplay in Fallout: Tactics?
Ausir said:
Seriously, Dionysus, here you have several people telling you the same thing. I'm not sure why you're just so stubborn as to not accept it.
What's better: to have a game that 90% of the time railroads you into fighting (in the main quest most often), or a game that offers you maybe 20% of purely fighting-only contract quests that are optional (25 total)? You also need to consider that the Witcher has probably 3 or 4 times more quests than FO3 (the amount of primary quests alone is equal to or greater than ALL the quests FO3 has to offer). This just means that, even though the two games offer roughly equal gameplay times, FO3 has much more fighting involved (all the dungeons without quests or sub-story).
As far as I remember, sneak in FO3 does not work well at all (I had a chara with 100 stealth) and you end up fighting anyways, and speech barely ever helps. Didja try talking the feral ghouls or the raiders into letting you through peacefully?
I realize that Witcher is no PS:T (even though PS:T only had 3 stats that ever affected speech), and that fighting and non-fighting are rathe separate from each other. However, I'd rather call that a good ARPG than a game that has largely everything linked to fighting.
