Personal View on Fo3

[GioFoto]

We are lucky to have gotten a new fallout.

I've waited eleven years... I think I would've been willing to wait a couple more for a better rendition of the franchise.

That's capitalism, folks!

Yeah, VATS works better than that.

 

[evilpumbaa]

What sells games these days? First person violence. Bethesda never had a choice and it was a bizare decision from a buisness stand point to buy the liscense to a ten year old pc rpg that only sold 250000 world wide....

We are lucky to have gotten a new fallout. It had to appeal to everyone, because Bethesda (like any company, even Interplay) exists to make money. Thats capitalism folks.

Fallout was very succesful for its time.

In any case, this 'I need to appeal to everyone!!!' attitude is exactly what's wrong with the game industry. It makes for a ton of very similar games that are all aimed at the same group of people. Every game out there is competing with almost every other game.
Instead, a company could make a lot of money by going after a niche. Basic economics.

Also, the fact that Bethesda should have done this to make money doesn't make the game any more enjoyable.

Maybe not, but you think your favourite companys do things for different reasons?

EVERY GAME DEVELOPER WANTS TO MAKE MONEY. It took them the best part of five years to make this game and they invested alot. Imagine paying 30 odd people (probably more) a full game developement wage for 5 years.....after spending a ridiculous amount on the franchise (enough to save interplay from death) that is based on a pc franchise.

Thats ten years old.

That very few outside of the gaming world have heard of.

Plus, you can hardly argue with a straight face this game is aimed at the lowest common denominator. The target audience is alot wider than before granted but in my country its illegal to sell it to anyone under 18 (the originals anyone could buy) and it has alot more in common with the original games than people want to admit.

Bethesda somehow turned a dead decade old franchise into a triple A whilst maintaining alot of what made fallout. That is an amazing achievment. Of course they had to allow every tom dick and harry to enjoy it (as if making a game everyone can enjoy is somehow a bad thing?!?!) because they invested EVERYTHING in an idea that, from a buisness stand point, is absolutely insane.

It is all about making money, and its naive to believe anyone makes a game for any other reason. Quite frankly, like i said before, we are lucky to get fallout 3 at all.

Especially knowing that Fallout franchise developed a pretty big fanbase over those years, so it would sell even if they made turnbased isometric Fallout 3, also there are plenty of Beth fanboys who would purchase anything they make.

Fallout, on the whole, was a small critical success. It did not set the world on fire. It was kind of succesful for a PC rpg but....i am the only person who remembers it out of all my friends. Bethesda HAD to make sure this sold to as many people as possible (again...when did it become a bad thing to try and entertain everyone you can?) otherwise they would have lost alot of money. This is not about getting stinking rich, its about making a profit on ur investment.

And bite me whichever admin altered my post. Go have sex with something.

 

[Predator_187]

wow, Beyonce and Shakira in the same music video, I have actually had dreams about that!! Wait where was I...oh yeah, and you are going to hate me for saying this, but I don't think TB will sell well in this day and age. Wait, maybe on STEAM. I personally would have bought Fallout 3 whether is is turnbased or not So I don't count in these wildy speculative speculations.

Just recently I purchased the white box edition of FO1, FO2, and FO3 and of all of my friends that tried it out (about 12) only 1 person found it enjoyable and that was because he had just found Baldur's Gate for the first time. Anyway, I started to play the first 3 games again and found them to be slow unless I edited my character rather heavily, nothing like going around with a .44 and headshotting everyone (hehehehehe). So yeah the original FO's are classics like the Original Star Trek is a classic (no sarcasm or anything there I still like ST:TOS).

So in closing, I am glad I bought FO3
I am Pat and I approve this personal opinion.

Done Rambling

Pat

 

[KraLMeLK0R]

wow, Beyonce and Shakira in the same music video, I have actually had dreams about that!! Wait where was I...oh yeah, and you are going to hate me for saying this, but I don't think TB will sell well in this day and age. Wait, maybe on STEAM. I personally would have bought Fallout 3 whether is is turnbased or not So I don't count in these wildy speculative speculations.

Just recently I purchased the white box edition of FO1, FO2, and FO3 and of all of my friends that tried it out (about 12) only 1 person found it enjoyable and that was because he had just found Baldur's Gate for the first time. Anyway, I started to play the first 3 games again and found them to be slow unless I edited my character rather heavily, nothing like going around with a .44 and headshotting everyone (hehehehehe). So yeah the original FO's are classics like the Original Star Trek is a classic (no sarcasm or anything there I still like ST:TOS).

So in closing, I am glad I bought FO3
I am Pat and I approve this personal opinion.

Done Rambling

Pat

I think you know that a lot of isometric style games are still being made as much as FPS`s. To give a perfect example: Diablo 3.

Now tell me; IF there was a fallout 3 with the diablo 3 engine with all the aspects of old fallout games do you still think that it would sell less?

Let us not fool ourselves; this game is a bad replica of how to use the name of something to create Oblivion. Let us face it Bethesda invested all their effort on this oblivion engine and will use it at least on 5 other games. How can it be possible that changing all the game mechanics to make a franchise can be accepted as a franchise?

Visually it is Fallout, technically it is something different like PoS.

 

[Predator_187]

I think you know that a lot of isometric style games are still being made as much as FPS`s. To give a perfect example: Diablo 3.

Now tell me; IF there was a fallout 3 with the diablo 3 engine with all the aspects of old fallout games do you still think that it would sell less?

Now see, I never said anything about isometric, I said turn based. So I stand by the TB idea. Isometric is a different story, I would have bought it if it was that way also. As a good example of an what Fallout might have turned out like as an isometric, check out SHADOWGROUNDS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowgrounds
And in all honesty, look at the outcry directed at Diablo 3. Blizzard makes color palette changes and everybody goes into apeshit panic mode.

So as turnbased, no it wouldn't have sold well, Maybe as isometric is would have sold marginally better although FOoS does come to mind with isometric.

The only FO I don't own is the console version of FO (not FO3, I own both PC and 360 versions)

Anyway

Pat

P.S.
write me in as candidate for president. If you do that, I will promise you real-life Fallouty goodness.

 

[Sander]

It is all about making money, and its naive to believe anyone makes a game for any other reason.

People do, companies don't.
Other than that, the fact that this is profitable for Bethesda does not make it a more enjoyable game.

Quite frankly, like i said before, we are lucky to get fallout 3 at all.

A) No. Bethesda wasn't some mythical saviour of the franchise, they bought the license as soon as it was out there. Other companies would've wanted to make this game as well.
B) I would've preferred no Fallout 3 to this franchise-ending Fallout 3. This is the Ultima IX of Fallout.

Fallout, on the whole, was a small critical success. It did not set the world on fire. It was kind of succesful for a PC rpg but....i am the only person who remembers it out of all my friends. Bethesda HAD to make sure this sold to as many people as possible (again...when did it become a bad thing to try and entertain everyone you can?) otherwise they would have lost alot of money.

Please learn about targeting a niche audience and not competing with every other game out there.

The idea that this is the only way for Bethesda to turn a profit is ludicrous. Especially when you consider that they could've simply made TES V or their own PA game without spending $1 million on the license.

So as turnbased, no it wouldn't have sold well

Which you know, how?
What, chess and poker aren't hugely succesful?

 

[Predator_187]

So as turnbased, no it wouldn't have sold well

Which you know, how?
What, chess and poker aren't hugely succesful?

I should have been clearer, a computer based role-playing game, when I said turn based.

If you are going to that criteria, then Candyland, Monopoly and Chutes and Ladders are wildly successful turn based games.

In class right now, will get back in a second.

Pat

 

[Sander]

I should have been clearer, a computer based role-playing game, when I said turn based.

If you are going to that criteria, then Candyland, Monopoly and Chutes and Ladders are wildly successful turn based games.

In class right now, will get back in a second.

Pat

So? Why would a computer turn-based game not be succesful, then, while all the board games are hugely succesful?

There's nothing about turn-based combat that automatically turns people off. Tons of people play poker daily on their PCs, or chess.

Just because all games that are coming out are quick and action-oriented doesn't mean that every game needs to be like that to be successful.

 

[Predator_187]

So this doesn't degenerate into a free-for-all, I stand by my assesment that TB is niche (no offense to all of you that like TB). Isometric is a bigger niche (no offense to you isometric lovers either) And before Diablo 3 is trotted out, people will buy that just like they will buy Star Craft 2. Anyway, this conversation has hi-jacked the original intent of the thread. Laters

Pat

 

[Sander]

Wait, so Civilization IV was a niche game instead of a huge seller?

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Wait, so Civilization IV was a niche game instead of a huge seller?

You forgot to mention the HOMM series.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Oh man, I bought Civ 4 when it first came out, and all the expansions. I still play it religiously. Mostly because of all the user made mods. Guess I'm power hungry

 

[Eyenixon]

So this doesn't degenerate into a free-for-all, I stand by my assesment that TB is niche (no offense to all of you that like TB). Isometric is a bigger niche (no offense to you isometric lovers either) And before Diablo 3 is trotted out, people will buy that just like they will buy Star Craft 2. Anyway, this conversation has hi-jacked the original intent of the thread. Laters

Pat

You're presenting gameplay mechanics and perspective as things that can be fitted into a "niche" classification.
Are you aware of how little sense that makes? It's comparable to calling James Joyce a niche writer simply because he makes liberal use of stream of consciousness, as one of the most prominent writers in the twentieth century, he is certainly not niche at all.

Entirely pointless, a genre can be niche and so can a film or game or whatever in its whole. But you cannot say that a specific element is "niche".

 

[sickfuck_diablo]

Where did all the trolls come from?

My personal view on Fallout 3:

A bunch of fanny pack wearin D&D nerds trying to write a "dark and edgy" post apoc RPG... It's as dark and edgy as a Renaissance Fair

It's Waterworld pretending it's Road Warrior

It's carrottop trying to be david cross

I could go on, but you get it.

 

[ShatteredJon]

Hey, I am a fanny pack less DnD nerd, and I easily could have written a better script than these guys.

Oh btw, love the carrot top to david cross reference, made me chuckle heartily.