Arachnivore said:
I don't know about you guys, but what I liked about FO had very little to do with isometric views, turn-based battles (although there is something to be said for turn-based systems), or the low-end graphics. It was about the story, the characters, the dark humor, and the mature themes.
So you're yet another moron that has no clue about the game's intended design, even when we bother to put it onto the site and also debunk newbie idiocy like yours on a daily basis. That's fine, enjoy the new avatar.
If FO3 turned out to be a FO2 mod (which it seems like what you guys are asking for) I don't doubt that you guys would say, "WTF Beth! I know we asked for a FO2 mod but we actually wanted a modern update to the FO series.”
No, a logical sequel, like from Ultima 5 to Ultima 6, isn't a bad thing. Stop reading what you want to and stop using that as excuses for the game to be changed for no logical design reason besides Lowest Common Denominator.
Losing the view point, RT combat, or botching the setting all have JACK SHIT to do with modern, as Fallout wasn't Diablo when it came out, right? And they came out the same year, FYI, child. So why the fuck should it now have Diablo-style gameplay? Because someone wants to prove they have no fucking clue what a P&P RPG is? Or that they have no clue how to treat a sequel?
The Idea that you can’t create a good fame and have good graphics etc. at the same time is total bullshit. If I remember correctly, FO had revolutionary graphics for its time.
MORON. Fallout had worse graphics, comparatively, to other games that came out before it. Including Myst, which only has done bad things for the industry.
Graphics weren't the point. The art design WAS. Which included the level design, because they were obviously more talented than you give them credit for. That is why the view style and character style were used. Again, I've had to say this again, and since I have to repeat myself despite your claims of lurking, then I'll simply give you the apropos reward for lying.
A game designing team isn't made up of only programmers. The artists and storywriters aren't the ones writing the graphics engine. So, more time spent on graphics doesn't mean less time spent on story. This is why Half-Life 2 pissed me off, they spend 6 years making the game and the whole time the writers are sitting there like "yeah, 'it was all a dream' is a great way to end a game!"
And you sound like you want to hand that to them, under the excuses you have. The whole part of Fallout was to be a role-playing game, and that is why Planescape: Torment's combat doesn't seem to suit the design, because they had to use the Inbred Engine. You go from reading into a bunch of uninteresting and uninvolving automated or clickfest combat, which disrupts the flow of the game. It disrupts the spirit and design of an RPG to do that.
The Idea that 3D graphics somehow limit the ability to create a certain feel is total horseshit. Play Myth and Myth II (which I might add had amazing graphics for their time as well as an awesome story). Play Resident Evil 4. There are a lot of 3D games that have very little style I know. But that doesn't mean that 3D is a limiting factor on style. There are a lot of 2D games with no style either.
You could have just simply refrained from typing that, and have saved yourself a lot of time thinking up that quite useless paragraph.
You also would have looked brighter for it as well.
Rounded surfaces? Room content? The fact that a post-nuclear wasteland has as little conventional structure resemblance to most 3d engine structure design?
To put that in layman's terms, because I know you are not that familiar with the game industry to make such uneducated comments, it means that the wasteland is full of rubbish that is hardly square, would require amounts of time spent on 3d modeling that would end up with templated objects or simplistic design, to the point where you might as well also forget about rounded objects. Which Fallout also had.
And Bethesda is known for their RNG style of design.
So what makes you think they could do a 3d post-nuclear wasteland when they decide to RNG a fuglier world than the creators of Gothic are able to do?
Oh, and what makes you think they could do decently rounded surfaces without creating another one of their problems? Fallout has multiple enemies. Bethesda is such a graphics whore company (except where it counts, level design), that they had to reduce the number of enemies you could face in Morrowind drastically from the number in Daggerfall.
Get used to the same random drag and drop monster placement style, so you don't accidentally encounter too many critters and lock the engine.
It seems that you guys are encouraging the game industry to do what it does best; Take a successful model for a game and reuse it and copy it and refine it until there is no room for innovation and no game maker who wants to make something unique and innovative will touch the stagnant model. At that point you get only game makers interested in squeezing money out of the hardcore gamers by repackaging the same games w/ better textures.
Bullshit. We're trying to get the game industry to STOP from doing what it's doing best, killing off good game ideas with bullshit trendy garbage morons like you have no ability to argue for, because you don't even know what you're talking about. Hell, you claimed to have read the forum, yet you miss my many rants about how entire game series that were FUCKING FANTASTIC have been killed off due to the excuses of morons like you. Or how some game exec has the idea to "refine" a game, leading to Magic Candle II sucking, or MOO3 sucking, or any number of Hasbro sell-outs for compromising design that does not suit the unique character of a game. Such as the two obvious examples that makes it obvious you're even a newbie to Fallout (aside from thinking it had stellar graphics for its time), Fallout Tictacs and Fallout: Enforcer.
Instead, it has to be "modernized" and skullfucked, because people like you say so without any idea of what you're saying
, and then you try and say that sequels aren't a good thing?
Or, better yet, here's the real irony. You say that Fallout has to match the "modern" common things, which are in fact the problem of the publishers to keep from trying anything outside of copying a few formula games that sell well, but then are cloned and compromise other games' design by having those trendy features skullfucked onto them. Then they tend to resemble just about every other game out there, just like the industry did before Fallout came along, which BioWare's been limping along by talentlessly ripping off their design ever since they got the idea to half-ass rip-off the speech tree system and put it into an RTS and call it a CRPG.
Lay down the crack pipe, kid. This is a far different issue than the numerous and lame 10-hour FPS console trash games floating around. That is thanks to EA, and it's ironic yet again that many things you argue for, EA did to Ultima and killed it off.
BRILLIANT!
I know there is a great difference between turn based and real time game play. It turns out fast paced games are actually bad for your health because they add adrenaline to your system while you just sit there and don't work it out. Turn based and non action oriented games (i.e. Sim City) actually have the opposite effect because they are more meditative and calming. I don't have the time to go look for references to back that shit up but I'm sure Google would be happy to guide you to the studies that show this effect.
Another useless paragraph, when you consider the intended design style and point of calling it a "P&P CRPG". Maybe you should rape your keyboard a little less and do a little more research, and pick up a book with obviously more rules and more detail than you're commonly used to.
That's all I can think of for now. I know I'm new to the forums but I have been fallowing NMA for some time now.
Liar, and now you have earned the apropos avatar.
I just got a little tired of the dogma regarding Isometric views and turn-based game play which in my view have very little to do w/ what makes something feel like fallout.
Too bad you didn't bother to read and THINK behind it, else you might have posted with some substance, and not be regarded as poor flamebait and a rather crispy warning for the other idiots who can't bother to lurk yet only half-ass read the threads here, yet think they are going to try and chastize us for wanting the game a certain way.
Funny, again, that some random shitstain of a nooblet also thinks they can come along and tell us contrary to what the developers have said on this very site, and expect us to be happy about it.
But, like that would ever happen. I really think the turned based aspect is not coming to F3, it may be like how Postal 2 was to the original, amusing but craptastic.
