Polygamia editorializes on Fallout 3
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
winterraptor
First time out of the vault
Tyshalle said:
I've heard this before, but if the designers are good enough, and the game is brilliant enough, quality and excellence will trump the tried and true any day. There is no formulae for being the best. For all we know, if Bethesda passed on the idea, 7 or 8 years down the line some newcomer might've picked it up and made a friggin masterpiece that revolutionalizes the industry.
We can't really know one way or the other what would have happened. If Bethesda tried it that way? They wouldn't have known where to begin, unless they went out and hired actual game designers instead of rip-off artists. But someone else? Who knows.
winterraptor
First time out of the vault
TTTimo said:The Neverwinter Nights series did quite well, didn't they? I guess in today's market isometric RPG = medieval/fantasy, and turn based is old fashioned
No, in today's market isometric action RPG = medieval/fantasy.
As for other RPGs...what other RPGs?
Jesuit
It Wandered In From the Wastes
winterraptor said:
While I agree with your sentiments from a game quality point of view. Brilliance doesn't really fit into a metric. While that gambit my pay off once in a while no one with any business sense would actually invest money in it. When you're rolling the dice every 2 years and one bad result means you lose all your money, you tend to make conservative bets. Also, back in the 90's you could get young upstarts on shoestring budgets willing to take that chance, but nowadays the amount of resources(aka, graphics) that have to go into a game before it'll even be considered competitive or get the notice of the press is pretty prohibitive. You still see some young companies making splashes with out the level of graphics most people expect, but those are usually relegated to completely new gameplay ideas... certainly not a pretty standard isometric turn based game.
Even studios like blizzard have settled into making sequels or spin-offs exclusively.
ookami said:
I think you took that a bit too literally. Though honestly, when a fanbase gets this up in arms about changes, it's sort of difficult to imagine a situation in which any changes could be made to the formula without having to walk on eggshells with the fans.
TTTimo said:
NWN wasn't strictly isometric. It was third-person perspective with a camera that could be moved around to just about any viewpoint you can think of. And it wasn't really turn-based either. I mean, it kind of was, but in no way similar to Fallout. At best, you could describe it as real-time with pause.
winterraptor said:
Maybe. But who wants to take on that kind of risk? Moreso, who wants to pay millions for a franchise license to take that kind of risk? It's a hard sell, no matter how you put it out there. Chances are more easily taken when you can offer a viscerally exciting experience. Turn-based games are a totally different thing, and just aren't as exciting, and as a result tend to not reach quite as wide of an audience.
... and now that I've written that I read the next post and realized this was covered.
winterraptor
First time out of the vault
Jesuit said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you from a game company's perspective, but the reality is that all the rules and logics of such professional gambling on our hypothetical dice table cannot eliminate the possibility of someone, somewhere coming in and betting it all on one toss, if you take my meaning. It's the human equation that screws such science up: we're not always rational. I never said it was likely. But we don't know it can't happen. Or 'couldn't', or 'wouldn't'.
By the same token, we don't know that Bethesda is going to have stellar success with this title. It might be an abysmal failure. Not likely, but it isn't certain.
Jesuit said:
I realize I make the case more doubtful if holding to the concept of 'exact style' (which is really vague if you think about it anyway). But innovation can come in any number of forms, and even within a 'standard' Fallout style game you might have revolutionary concepts related to artificial intelligence, dialog, interfacing, mission generation, customization (character, items, etc.), storyline, setting, and so on. Its possible to see years of advancement in a game and yet still have a template that is supposedly 'outdated'.
The things I like about the good (and few) CRPGs out there are just skeletal frameworks I find pleasing. The rest can change. Especially if its better.
It may all be terribly optimistic. But even now, its possible. There may be a true spiritual sequel one day, even if its not called Fallout (maybe while Beth is making Fallout 6: Mutants On Mars). Some can speculate, some can dream.
As far as I can see, it looks more like a good, FPS, post-apo game. Less Fallout.
It sounds like a "spiritual successor" is a bad thing.
Yes, people buy a license for millions of dolars to make more millions of dolars, for a commercial success.
In Bethesda's example, they bought Fallout license to make their own Fallout game. They liked few bits of the previous games, and they thought they can make a huge money only on these bits (violence, gore, humor, the whole idea and concept), because they are very populat these days. And also, for its name "Fallout".
They called it a sequel, because if it was called a spin-off, people would take it as not a complete successor to the previous games (FO:BoS for example). And the pop-culture is blind. They can be brainwashed by cool and shiny graphics/design. They don't want to think about it deeper or even twice, because...graphics are cool and that's enough for them!
They could have done Fallout 3 in many ways. Turn-based combat and isometric perspective can be designed greatly these days. But why? If it is easier to just use the same engine as for Oblivion and do FPS, because "people want to be inside the game", so why will they bother?
...but not their game
WOW, finally someone said it.
TheWesDude
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
ok, stop it right now with calling this shit next-gen.
seriously, stop it because its fucking wrong.
the first recognized "computer" game was pong. real time- top down.
anything that utilizes EITHER mechanics is the polar oppisite of next-gen because it would be FIRST-GEN.
bethesda alone has been doing FPP-RT games for over 15 years, yet they call it next-gen? when did the current generation end? daggerfall was released in 1994 and had a 3 year dev cycle.
so stop this shit with calling it next-gen. because its fucking moronic.
EDIT:
just for you idiots out there, isometric was the LAST view-perspective to be "invented" out there. to be considered using the "latest" technology it would have to be turn-based and isometric.
seriously, stop it because its fucking wrong.
the first recognized "computer" game was pong. real time- top down.
anything that utilizes EITHER mechanics is the polar oppisite of next-gen because it would be FIRST-GEN.
bethesda alone has been doing FPP-RT games for over 15 years, yet they call it next-gen? when did the current generation end? daggerfall was released in 1994 and had a 3 year dev cycle.
so stop this shit with calling it next-gen. because its fucking moronic.
EDIT:
just for you idiots out there, isometric was the LAST view-perspective to be "invented" out there. to be considered using the "latest" technology it would have to be turn-based and isometric.
aronsearle
Still Mildly Glowing
It's clearly next gen in the context of how the word is used now-days.
poke poke poke
poke poke poke
brambolius
First time out of the vault
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.
wow, the guy who wrote this has achieved epic fail within the confinement of merely ONE sentence,
[/b]
wow, the guy who wrote this has achieved epic fail within the confinement of merely ONE sentence,
[/b]Jesuit said:
Anyone know what is happening with the Wasteland sequel that was hinted at a year ago or so? I've pretty much given up hope on Fallout 3 being a true Fallout sequel based on everything I've seen here. So I'd say our best hope of a spiritual successor right now is the return of Fallout's father.
I think they've got a couple of projects they're working on right now, neither are Wasteland
http://www.inxile-entertainment.com/index.asp
http://www.inxile-entertainment.com/index.asp
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Besides, it's going FPS almost for certain...
:EDIT:
I'm ok with the FP part, but what's up with these fuckers so focused on making shooters!? Fallout had so few combat it's incredible. Most of anybody's playthroughs they shoot very few people... In Fallout 2 that's another story, but wow...
:EDIT:
I'm ok with the FP part, but what's up with these fuckers so focused on making shooters!? Fallout had so few combat it's incredible. Most of anybody's playthroughs they shoot very few people... In Fallout 2 that's another story, but wow...
It's the best type for consoles.
I wish consoles would die.
I wish consoles would die.
The times of companies taking risks and being innovative are gone, I'm afraid.
With the development time and costs associated, it's necessary to put money above artistry/solid gameplay in order to recoup expenses.
The golden age is over.
With the development time and costs associated, it's necessary to put money above artistry/solid gameplay in order to recoup expenses.
The golden age is over.
Flamescreen
First time out of the vault
People let's relax. Those people are trying too hard to compete who will shine Bethesda's armor the best for a good pat on the back(and maybe ads income and exclusives) it is obvious at this point that their silly excuses to make a case, don't add up and are laughable.
Especially when they don't see how bringing up facts like the Diablo petition to make the game EVEN CLOSER to the original, despite that they already are quite alot, hurts their case for innovation.
When the truth is there is no innovation at all, considering Bethesda is using first perspective and real time for ages, so they're the CONSERVATIVE ones by doing what's working for them and not risking by trying something else, with all the money they now have.
Furthermore that this style has been tried as back as 1979 and practically almost all adventure games. Third person on the other hand has always been an RPG trademark and what defines it from most other genres.
FP style has been favored by many companies for quite some time now, in order to homogenize gamers from many genres, like adventure, RPG, strategy and thus increasing their sales.
For this reason they always try to tell us that Third person isometric is dead(the least of FO3 problems), but they shall always fail. Fallout is now just another of the casualties in their attempts to makes us cattle that will take whatever they serve and say "thank you" for it.
Will not happen. In addition I can take, no matter the sorrow it causes me that they destroyed the game in such ways they did, as it's now theirs. For which those that gave it to them from Interplay will eventually pay somehow(e.g will not pay for FO Online).
But when they go to the extent of judging another great game like Diablo for not following their footsteps, it just pisses me off.
Especially when they don't see how bringing up facts like the Diablo petition to make the game EVEN CLOSER to the original, despite that they already are quite alot, hurts their case for innovation.
When the truth is there is no innovation at all, considering Bethesda is using first perspective and real time for ages, so they're the CONSERVATIVE ones by doing what's working for them and not risking by trying something else, with all the money they now have.
Furthermore that this style has been tried as back as 1979 and practically almost all adventure games. Third person on the other hand has always been an RPG trademark and what defines it from most other genres.
FP style has been favored by many companies for quite some time now, in order to homogenize gamers from many genres, like adventure, RPG, strategy and thus increasing their sales.
For this reason they always try to tell us that Third person isometric is dead(the least of FO3 problems), but they shall always fail. Fallout is now just another of the casualties in their attempts to makes us cattle that will take whatever they serve and say "thank you" for it.
Will not happen. In addition I can take, no matter the sorrow it causes me that they destroyed the game in such ways they did, as it's now theirs. For which those that gave it to them from Interplay will eventually pay somehow(e.g will not pay for FO Online).
But when they go to the extent of judging another great game like Diablo for not following their footsteps, it just pisses me off.
Flamescreen said:
Eh, don't worry about it too much. Bethesda will sell a ton of copies of Fallout 3, but... I'd bet anything that Diablo 3 will sell far more copies over time.
Blizzard knows how to make games with legs. While Fallout 3's numbers will be impressive early on, I think it will have a much steeper decline in sales over time. Diablo 3 will keep going and going.
hmm
the last game i consider being of REAL novelty in the last few years was publshed as an addon, as part of a franchise which would generate enough money just by the name of it.
portal in the orange box.
as simple as it is (this game design would work as a flash game, basically, minus the rotten humour), its breathtaking in its simplicity. i bet that NOONE in valve would have considered it worthy to be published as a stand-alone full prized game.
now i set my hopes on this runner (e3 thread in gaming forum) game, which strangely reminds me of portal (might be the graphics). there are always some good ideas out there (remember XIII?), but i hate this "marketing research" driven urge to do all the same things over and over again. if you only trust these numbers and focus foremostly on shareholder value when developing cultural products, you WILL end up in a one-way-street. hopefully, one day this action-rpg/adventure genre will be revived. NOT by its developing companies, but by investors who are willing to take the risk and support some really new idea. i bet there are a lot of good things out there that simply lack the funding.
the last game i consider being of REAL novelty in the last few years was publshed as an addon, as part of a franchise which would generate enough money just by the name of it.
portal in the orange box.
as simple as it is (this game design would work as a flash game, basically, minus the rotten humour), its breathtaking in its simplicity. i bet that NOONE in valve would have considered it worthy to be published as a stand-alone full prized game.
now i set my hopes on this runner (e3 thread in gaming forum) game, which strangely reminds me of portal (might be the graphics). there are always some good ideas out there (remember XIII?), but i hate this "marketing research" driven urge to do all the same things over and over again. if you only trust these numbers and focus foremostly on shareholder value when developing cultural products, you WILL end up in a one-way-street. hopefully, one day this action-rpg/adventure genre will be revived. NOT by its developing companies, but by investors who are willing to take the risk and support some really new idea. i bet there are a lot of good things out there that simply lack the funding.