Pete Hines on negativity

I think The Dutch Ghost was being sarcastic :D

If they manage a 'true' RPG, then it'll be great - but we don't know yet if they can pull it off. The system doesn't really relate into it.
Click to expand...

Well, from what we've seen in the last few months, Beth showed us FPS with some RPG thingies is it. You can call that a true RPG if you want, but it's only in your own, imagination world dude.

heh, I wonder how they could "pull it off" when the game is basically finished :D
 
Brother None said:
Oh believe me, The Dutch Ghost, they can keep this one going for a long, long time.

After initial info: we just don't know enough yet
When pretty much all the basics are known: we still need to play it
After trying it: well you have to finish it to really get it
After finishing it: well you have to finish it in multiple ways to really get it
After finishing it in multiple ways: well you have to wait for patches and added content so Bethesda can complete their game
After all that: well just wait for Fallout 4 it will be better
Click to expand...

Almost like a broken record player, "You need to try the game... *click * try the game... *click * try the game... *click * try the game... *click *... "

Who knows, years after WW3 has happened for real, scavengers will find this record player still running. "try the game... *click *... "
 
along with:

"yeah but bethesda sucks.....bethesda sucks

fallout 3 is not a real fallout sequel, fallout 3 is not a reall fallout sequel, Barry Bonds is not the homerun king..." ooops wait a minute
 
Yes.

'cause an argument-stopping platitude like "it's not even out yet" is exactly the same thing as a reasoned argument why Fallout 3 does not meet the requirements of being a Fallout sequel.

Well done, Renegade, good job on showing calm, maturity and logic there. I applaud.
 
Brother none, you miss my point, I was merely pointing out that while there are some who make good reasoned arguments, such as yourself, there are others who are just as illogical in their attacks as there are those who are illogical in their defense.

I have no issue with the people who state their arguments, it is the "this game is gonna suck" or "bethesda is a bunch of idiots" without any actual reasoning or explanation other then the feeding frenzy mentality which exists on both sides of the argument.


It was meant in jest, I apologize if you found it insulting, it was not directed at yourself or any specific poster.
 
Texas Renegade said:
Brother none, you miss my point, I was merely pointing out that while there are some who make good reasoned arguments, such as yourself, there are others who are just as illogical in their attacks as there are those who are illogical in their defense.
Click to expand...

Sure, but there's a difference between calling them out specifically for bad arguments, as I do regularly as well, and saying "Fallout 3 is not much of a Fallout sequel" is a nonsensical argument by definition, like the "it's not even out yet"-argument.
 
Brother None said:
5. Give us an idea of the creative process involved in converting the game from pen and paper to a computer game.

Chris Taylor
The paper and pencil gaming was something we tried to emulate.
Click to expand...

I've just read through this whole thread, and I was curious how you would define "emulate." By the definition here it can mean to strive to equal or to attain equality with, but it seems like you are using something like the Computer Science definition listed:

"To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system."

Also, I'd like to point out that Chris Taylor said they were trying to emulate pnp gaming and not the gameplay mechanics. To emulate the gaming would be to emulate the actions and choices of pnp players can make.
 
Texas Renegade said:
Brother none, you miss my point, I was merely pointing out that while there are some who make good reasoned arguments, such as yourself, there are others who are just as illogical in their attacks as there are those who are illogical in their defense.

I have no issue with the people who state their arguments, it is the "this game is gonna suck" or "bethesda is a bunch of idiots" without any actual reasoning or explanation other then the feeding frenzy mentality which exists on both sides of the argument.


It was meant in jest, I apologize if you found it insulting, it was not directed at yourself or any specific poster.
Click to expand...

Reading all arguments about FO3 for 1-2 years, from the possitive and negative points of view, I have noticed that the negative side has more logical and convincing arguments than the other one.

Also, I'd like to point out that Chris Taylor said they were trying to emulate pnp gaming and not the gameplay mechanics. To emulate the gaming would be to emulate the actions and choices of pnp players can make.
Click to expand...

Well, the mechanics in Fallout 1/2 look like PnP mechanics to me.
But please don't tell me that FPP is another, new emulation from it! FPP was created before Isometric view, and would you play chess in FPP? Yes you would, somehow, but for chess iso view would be much better to play :P
 
Also, I'd like to point out that Chris Taylor said they were trying to emulate pnp gaming and not the gameplay mechanics. To emulate the gaming would be to emulate the actions and choices of pnp players can make.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, and it just happened by chance that the mechanics were from PnP too, right? They have decided "to emulated the actions and choices" and they were sitting wondering what mechanics to use. Since they couldn't choose, they thought of randomly drawing from a hat. And guess what? They drew PnP mechanics and they were dumbfounded at the coincidence.

Or, wait, let me guess... they didn't have the technology back then and they HAD to use these mechanics?
 
Scrawnto said:
I've just read through this whole thread, and I was curious how you would define "emulate."
Click to expand...

Me? I don't feel any need to define it much at all, since you can simply play Fallout and it becomes pretty evident pretty quickly how it emulates pen and paper gameplay. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, I'd say.
 
I suppose I need to lurk more. I haven't read many of these debates or threads. So the technology point (that I hadn't actually thought of, but FeelTheRads put into my mouth) interests me. I haven't heard anything on this subject. Do you mean to say that technology could not have had any influence on the direction they took the design? Is there a particular thread in which this debate has already run its course and which will answer my question for which I should search?

Certainly the least complex set of mechanics I can think of to allow players to do the sorts of things they can do in pnp games is to use the same mechanics. After all that's how those mechanics were chosen for pnp games. If they were too much more complex they wouldn't be practical for a game that is played on paper. You guys are probably right though. Based on the quotations I've seen, the game was certainly intended to reproduce the mechanics of a pen and paper game by design, and not only as a matter of convenience.

I'd also like to make it clear that I really don't have strong feelings in this argument one way or the other. I loved the older games, but I am not offended by the changes that Bethesda has made. That said, I would definitely buy a game which had mechanics and story quality similar to Fallout and Fallout II. I'm actually interested in this debate because I am a Game Design Major at UCSC. These kinds of debates might be informative and relevant to my education or even future career. So by all means find fault in my logic. I will treat it as a learning experience.
 
Scrawnto said:
Do you mean to say that technology could not have had any influence on the direction they took the design?
Click to expand...

Technology influences some things. Like the choice to go for 2D instead of 3D, which makes for repeated models and the like. The talking head tech is great but limited. Combat AI isn't fantastic (but it isn't much better in some modern games).

It's when people claim Fallout was turn-based due to technology is when we usually scratch our heads. Diablo came out quite some months before Fallout, there were a lot of RT games (and RT RPGs, like Bethesda's Arena) before Fallout. The choice for bird's-eye view and turn-based was not primarily determined by technology.
 
Certainly real-time was possible back then if you had a more simplified RPG like Diablo. I'm not arguing that. However I would think that Fallout had quite a bit more number crunching per character with each character's rolls and stats and decisions. Multiple characters running at the same time would probably be a bit more computationally taxing. On the other hand, Baldur's Gate, which had an adapted PnP rule set in real-time, was released only a year later than Fallout. Why was real-time play tagged onto the main franchise in Van Buren and not before? Was it just because someone at Black Isle liked it in Fallout Tactics, which was of course made by a different team with a different vision, or because consumers or Interplay demanded it?
 
i recall fallout being quite demanding to my machine at the time it was published, so your observation has some merit.
 
In Fallout Tactics you could choose to use real-time combat or a turn-based combat like in the originals.

That gave this spin-off a good tactical combat.
 
Scrawnto said:
Certainly real-time was possible back then if you had a more simplified RPG like Diablo. I'm not arguing that. However I would think that Fallout had quite a bit more number crunching per character with each character's rolls and stats and decisions. Multiple characters running at the same time would probably be a bit more computationally taxing.
Click to expand...

Sure, taxing but not impossible. Baldur's Gate had been in production before Fallout was even started, so think along those lines. They might have had to adapt some bigger fights but if they really wanted to do it RT it would have been possible.

Scrawnto said:
Why was real-time play tagged onto the main franchise in Van Buren and not before?
Click to expand...

Sawyer explained the RT was added because Interplay wanted it. The dev team just wanted TB. So it became TB/RT.
 
Well, to be honest, I fully expected the TB/RT modes to be an unbalanced mess, like was the case for Arcanum. They never had the budget or time to work on this kind of difficult design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top