Polygamia editorializes on Fallout 3

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Polygamia editorializes.<blockquote>Regardless of everything else, Interplay was not able to make Fallout 3, and the rights to Van Buren is such a complicated matter, that there's no point in going into that. Besides, the times have changed, the market has changed, the players have changed. That there's no place for a Fallout-style RPG on the market was something its makers discovered. After leaving Interplay, they founded Troika Games. Not having the rights to the series, they wanted to create a so called "spiritual successor" using their own engine, with isometric view, turn-based combat, a complex statistics system, etc. And they went from door to door of various powers that be in the industry, hearing that no one in his right mind will risk putting their money in such a project. Even though the makers of the game were not just some random people.
(...)
Pretty much all of the controversies connected with Bethesda's latest production are not about whether Fallout 3 will be a good game, but whether it will be a good Falout. But here the sad, grey reality with the face of a grim accountant appears. Fallout 3 made like the first two Fallouts would be a financial disaster, I have no doubts about it. No one buys a license for millions of dollars to achieve ambitious failures, especially in the 21st century, when games are being published for all possible platforms and for an audience as wide as possible. Looking at what we've seen of F3 so far, I've seen big nods to the classics made by Bethesda, and they really didn't have to. Their money, their will.
(...)
Those who think that Blizzard proved that you can do it differently with Diablo 3 forget about the petition saying that the colors shown in Paris are too bright. And the situation is pretty much uncomparable. Blizzard has been operational all the time, is in excellent financial condition and Diablo is a big financial hit. However, I'm far from saying that critique of Bethesda's work was unnecessary. It was very much needed, and only the makers know how much more Fallout there is in Fallout 3 because of it.
(...)
I have only one grievance with Bethesda. This game should not be called Fallout 3. It could have any other name, like Fallout: Super Duper Mart, and it would take care of many of the issues. JoWooD was smarter. The new Gothic game, being made by a different company (Spellbound) than the previous installments (Piranha Bytes) will be called Gothic Tale. Maybe the change is not big, but it takes care of many problems. Besides, other problems like this will soon come up. How much Deus Ex will there be in Deus Ex 3? How much Beyond Good & Evil in Beyond Good & Evil 2? It's also worth looking at and comparing to Bethesda's Fallout.</blockquote>We thank thee, Ausir.
 
You sure this is legit, Aus?

It's...pretty bad. From not even know that the new Gothic sequel is called Arcania: A Gothic Tale to completely miffing up a retelling of Troika and Van Buren's history.
 
I'm just a translator, tried to be as faithful as possible. And "Gothic Tale" is not that far from "A Gothic Tale" is it? Even when not using the full title, the Gothic argument is still legit. And while they did mix some stuff up about VB and Troika's PA project, at least unlike most gaming media they understand our argument about it being a spin-off, not a sequel.
 
I'm just sayin', the game is called Arcania, not anything else. A Gothic Tale is its subtitle.

The reason I was wondering about the legitness is because these are forum-style and forum-quality arguments. "This is market reality" and "can't be compared to Blizzard" are two staples on Fallout discussions on any forum, not really worth editorializing about.

They've also been shot down enough times, especially Blizzard's self-perpetuated "special status" myth. But I'm betting we'll be forced to do so again.
 
And why is he saying Blizzard's "retro" strategy with Diablo 3 isn't viable because people were saying it should be more retro?
 
heh, he is very right. Its allot easier if ya steal the story concepts for an rpg, paste sum the sprites on sum old engine you already own. adding elements of this francise to an already existing idea, using its story. just makes it easier to lap it up when the sales are set sail and the wind takes you yatch to the caribeanne... besides, I Don't think they make a Fallout (TM) (CR) )CC( tropical islands game yet, oh wait... Rio Del hola..

so what Im saying. its what we always ask from them, to throw the first punch, so we get 2 more turn in the sequence. yes its all about sequence, is not it? so this means were fighting wolves. we got F1 n F2, they got fot and Fbos. lets just hope bethsidah doesnt have lots of action points. so us, the fans get fallout back in our hands

I want room in the vaults so I getsa few shots at the enclave ya know what I mean? and it seems the enclave are the ones owning the francise the game about 2 be played as we know it.

I like games, I like all games, I just dont like the bad guys winning.
_EVER_


Destrucfully yours,

Destroyaz_[/img][/url]
 
Per said:
And why is he saying Blizzard's "retro" strategy with Diablo 3 isn't viable because people were saying it should be more retro?
Click to expand...

If it gets much more retro, it just might end up like Mega Man 9. But yeah, no good arguments there at all. What really can be said of this little gem here:

Polygamia said:
Looking at what we've seen of F3 so far, I've seen big nods to the classics made by Bethesda, and they really didn't have to. Their money, their will.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to give NODS to the classics while making an installment in the franchise, with that 3 in the title? If so, why spend their precious millions in the franchise, which I'd argue is a valid point even in the current state of affairs, let alone in this guy's wild dreams about a sequel completely destitute of recurring elements and themes.

Yes, legally they have the right to fuck up this game as badly as they'd like, but if money talks so loudly perhaps they're simply not dumb enough to throw it all on the garbage can.
 
generalissimofurioso said:
Seymour the spore plant said:
If it gets much more retro, it just might end up like Mega Man 9.
Click to expand...
Baby Robot Mega Man is back baby!
Click to expand...

Yeah well.

Mega Man is not a good point of comparison. It's being retro for the sake of being retro. Diablo 3 is what it is because it makes sense for a Diablo game, just like it should for a Fallout game.
 
Brother None said:
Mega Man is not a good point of comparison. It's being retro for the sake of being retro. Diablo 3 is what it is because it makes sense for a Diablo game, just like it should for a Fallout game.
Click to expand...

It was just a joke about retro games, not an actual comparison. Don't get me wrong, I loved Capcom's idea for its nostalgia value (it still cracks me up to see that trailer, and I'll have to get a new console if only to play this thing), but I certainly did not mean it like "every game should be made like this".
 
Further bringing the retro gameplay into the present evidence - Street Fighter IV: While it's gone 3D, from what I have heard, the camera is almost entirely at the same spot as it would seem from the 2D days. Furthermore the characters and some other aspects probably relate more to the original Street Fighter II than Alpha or 3 did.
 
This argument of first person equals new, innovative, and the future of gaming is silly, first person has been around since wolfenstein. As I remember it for a while game makers were moving away from first person and copying games like Tomb Raider with the third person over the shoulder style. This isn't a issue of new versus old but the usual cycle of whats in and whats out.



:oops: I probably should have look that one up, but I decided to wing it, thanks for the fact check Brother None.
 
And let's also not forget, first person AND real-time was being used during the mid-80s by Sir-Tech in the early Wizardry series.

Dude, FPP and RT is SO next gen!
 
MacsenMifune said:
This argument of first person equals new, innovative, and the future of gaming is silly, first person has been around since wolfenstein.
Click to expand...

Since Wolfenstein?

1979's Akalabeth was first person.

Bethesda's first RPGs, 1994's Arena and 1996's Daggerfall? First person, real time.

And then came Fallout, in 1997.

So yes, the chronology of the argument is a bit suspect.[/url]
 
What they really mean is that FPS is popular and therefore very marketable. Whereas Isometric RPGs are not currently in the position of very large scale mass market appeal, or at least this is what Bethesda and many journalists apparently think.
 
Ever since these new consoles hit the market journalists started writing dumber and dumber articles.
First they couldn't get over calling them "next-gen" years after they where launched, now they're hailing them as the last bastions of gaming while the PC is suffering a slow and painful death.
Guess it's just the "cool" thing to do these days: praise the consoles, throw dirt at the PC and its users.
 
Brother None said:
Bethesda's first RPGs, 1994's Arena and 1996's Daggerfall? First person, real time.

And then came Fallout, in 1997.

So yes, the chronology of the argument is a bit suspect.
Click to expand...

The flip side of that coin is one of those companies is still in business and the other isn't. In fact when I think back on all my favorite isometric Turn based games the studios that made them are out of business. Sir-Tech, Troika, Black Isle, NWC... all gone. Meanwhile Bethesda just scored a huge hit with a less than stellar RPG in Oblivion.

I love the old games, but from an investor's point of view, rightly or not, old style fallout looks a lot riskier than new style fallout. And if there's one thing Bethesda epitomizes it's a corporate minded production company with an eye on ROI.
 
Jesuit said:
I love the old games, but from an investor's point of view, rightly or not, old style fallout looks a lot riskier than new style fallout. And if there's one thing Bethesda epitomizes it's a corporate minded production company with an eye on ROI.
Click to expand...

As does anyone who wants to remain in business. If anyone did Fallout 3 in the same exact style of the first two it wouldn't be nearly as profitable as Bethesda's is going to be. And who's going to spend millions of dollars on the Fallout license without the intention to profit off of it as much as possible?
 
Tyshalle said:
Fallout 3 in the same exact style of the first two
Click to expand...
I don't see anyone asking for that to be done. What is the point of bringing that up over and over again when only a few (if any) of the very diehard Fallout fans are refusing anything except an exact copy of the first two games, stylistically or otherwise?

Are those the only two options you can possibly imagine? Could it only ever have been either Fallout 3 exactly like 1 and 2 or the frankenshooter mess that Bethesda has made? I certainly see options other than that. Van Buren wasn't even the 'same exact style' as 1 and 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top