Proxima said:
They still in pre-production, they didn't announce a signle feature or spec about the game but it doesn't matter because you already decided BethSoft isn't worthy to develop Fallout. So it doesn't matter if it will have stunning gfx but it will be full 3D, it doesn't matter if it will have awesome combat system but not turn based and it doesn't matter if it will have a great skill based system but not SPECIAL. In short, it doesn't matter if it's gonna be a great game .. it sucks already because it's not gonna be exactly like you want (aka exactly like a 1997 old game was). As i said already, gladly you don't speak up for the whole market.
Many, many people seem to be amazed that the hardcore fans are upset. Then they go and tell them not to be upset, and tell why they think people should not be upset.
Stop for a minute and try to understand why people here are upset, and don't be so childish about it. Also understand that your kind of behaviour begs for hostility. Discuss, do not preach, even if we preach. Be better than us. And of course we should not preach either. I'm trying here.
I know it's difficult to understand why people think like they do, I fail in it constantly and make an ass out of myself. Note that these are just my opinions, and likely many people here will disagree with me. However I think it is fairly safe to say the hardcore fans strongly feel that the presentation has a strong impact on gameplay and the gaming experience. What it all boils down to is that the fans here think that if Bethesda, or anyone else, is going to create a game with Fallout name that won't fit to their ideas of true Fallout, why call it Fallout?
Arrogant, perhaps, but you have to understand that for example the people at Troika would be likely to agree with many of the views adopted here. Also understand that Bethesda comes from somewhere different. Just read the news this thread is commenting.
This should not be difficult to understand, really. As little as Elder Scrolls games are turnbased isometric games, as little Fallout is first-person or real time. Two very different cooks. Even if both specialize in seafood, the other excells with squids, the other with salmon.
It's not that the people here feel it should be _exactly_ like it was before. The people feel it should be true to _what they perceive as being true to Fallout means_. Which is a complex issue that is most easily presented by saying isometric, turn-base and SPECIAL. If others are so silly that they do not understand that no one is against higher resolutions and beautiful 3D models and textures what reason is there to expect to be understood on any other issue either?
Also, even if Bethesda or the Pope or anyone says turn-based is not the way to go, why should anyone agree? No one is saying (I believe) that real time is inherently worse or better than turn-based. They are only saying that they are differnt, suit different games. And that they dig turn-based. A lot. The most extreme people are saying that their definition of RPG won't encompass games that are in first-person, rt or somesuch because for them the experience is no longer something they feel as a RPG experience. This is simply a personal view.
Also, games, for the most part, can only do one thing well. If you try to do many things, all of them will fail. Arguable, but I'm pretty sure if you point me a game that tries to do everything, imho it does everything quite badly. By this I mean for every 'itsallmine' game I will find games that concentrate on those singular things and I will enjoy those singular games more. It seems many people simply care about doing things, just about the response, not about mechanics or, hmm, sophistication as such, but I am not one of them.
Thus I feel doing both RT and TB is a mistake, and RT with pause is also icky. Actually the most interesting RT with pause I've seen was in a 1993 game called Space Hulk, which basically allowed you to queue orders upon pausing the game.
Proxima said:
Seems to me that few of you realize you don't represent the whole market. While 100 of you here might think that isometric is the way to go .. well maybe the rest of the gamers out there would like full 3D instead (hey .. KOTOR soud million copies but i guess it sucks cos it isn't isometric after all hehe)
First of all, while semantically incorrect, isometric can be 3D. I personally did not like KoToR terribly much. I wouldn't say it sucks, exactly, but I feel it would have been a more interesting game had it been done differently. Even if it has a nice story, a lot of work done on the characters and so on. I do not want to feel that way about Fallout 3. Everyone knows the general trend is towards KoToR (generalization). Multi-platform, non-tactical combat/gameplay.
What the hardcore fans are trying to achieve is to convince Bethesda that a Fallout game that's not true to the original (in the way that the fans see it) will not sell, cases in point being FOT and FOBOS. While I wish this was so, I am quite pessimistic that we will get a non-Fallouty post-apoc game, that might even be good but not Fallout. If this is so, I can't help but feel that it should not be called Fallout. And that Troika should have gotten the deal.
So while you say we do not realize we do not represent the whole of market, atleast in my case it is that I do not care that I do not represent the whole of market. My tastes are different and I chose to be vocal about them regarding Fallout 3. I find it insulting that you think I should agree with million other people, just because they all seem to agree with eachother. I also believe a lot of you million people would in fact like my kind of a Fallout 3. I guess this behaviour is a bit quixotic, but hey, my time, ain't it
OS.
