Power Armour changes.

[Someguy37]

So you would not raise your eyebrows if Todd howard came out tomorrow telling you that TES 6 will play in modern day New York? Or that Fallout 6 will, for example, use a time machine to send the player back to the 17th century of the Fallout world? Even if they offer you an explanation, time rifts, multiple universes, some mumbo-jumbo-deadra/science-magic etc.

No, and that's nowhere near what they have done with either series at all.

I hate to say it, and I know it sounds smug, but I think a lot of franchises get ruined by what you could see as tourists moving trough it, and people that don't have actually a real grasp of what it means. Some of us here, have a profound understanding of what Fallout is, or what it should be. At least more than you do, Someguy.

I find it funny you mention that when Tim Cain, Chris A, Brian Fargo, and many other devs of the old Fallout games, have expressed approval at what Bethesda has done with the series. Tim Cain even went so far as to basically mock the "fans" who told him he should hate Fallout 3.

NMA is actively known across the Internet for being the paranoid, conspiracy theorist, website, that makes up any number of excuses to explain why the newer games are bad, and break the lore, even when the devs of the older games say they don't.

You are literally saying at this point that the people who made the games in the first place are wrong about what defines the games. And at the point at which you are trying to tell the people who made the games in the first place that they are wrong, you don;t care about the series, or know what its about, you only care about your personal perception of what the series should be about, and not what it actually is.

 

[Khannis]

I wonder if it is a religion to them? Wait what am I saying? I encounter people calling Toddy boy "Godd Howard", humanity is doomed.

Hahahaha, for some reason your post made me picture David Attenborough saying "What do they eat? How do they live"... But surely, we're the crazy ones. Conspiracy theorists, paid to further the downfall of the mightiest of RPG companies, the greatest of the great, Bethesda itself.

 

[MercenarySnake]

I wonder if it is a religion to them? Wait what am I saying? I encounter people calling Toddy boy "Godd Howard", humanity is doomed.

Hahahaha, for some reason your post made me picture David Attenborough saying "What do they eat? How do they live"... But surely, we're the crazy ones. Conspiracy theorists, paid to further the downfall of the mightiest of Hiking Sim companies, the greatest of the great, Bethesda itself.

Fixed that for ya.
Yes we're totally here just to personally shit on them for the "lulz". If only people would understand that we're only criticizing their games in hopes they improve their games and keep true to the lore...

 

[Crni Vuk]

So you would not raise your eyebrows if Todd howard came out tomorrow telling you that TES 6 will play in modern day New York? Or that Fallout 6 will, for example, use a time machine to send the player back to the 17th century of the Fallout world? Even if they offer you an explanation, time rifts, multiple universes, some mumbo-jumbo-deadra/science-magic etc.

No, and that's nowhere near what they have done with either series at all.

Well, let's wait a couple of more ... sequels. There are already enough F3 fans even that don't like the direction of Fallout 4 already. Who knows what even you might think about Fallout 5. As it ends up with the player waking up on a vault on a Mars station or even working on settlements in a completely different Galaxy even, because Mass Effect Andromedar might be the inspiration for Bethesda this time instead of Borderlands and Minecraft.

I find it funny you mention that when Tim Cain, Chris A, Brian Fargo, and many other devs of the old Fallout games, have expressed approval at what Bethesda has done with the series. Tim Cain even went so far as to basically mock the "fans" who told him he should hate Fallout 3.

Because he's right. Nonsensical and pure hate should be mocked, just like hysterical hype.

But we are talking here mainly about what Tim said and did with Fallout 1, "(...)My idea is to explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun". The core of what Fallout 1 was to them. There is no better way to describe the core of Fallout in one sentence.

No one ever said you're not allowed to have fun with either Fallout 3 or Fallout 4. Including the original Fallout developers of course. By the way, Tim also said that in his mind, he could not imagine to make Fallout 3 anything else but turn based and top down. So, yeah. Make out of that what ever you want.

Just beacause he has no negative opinion about Bethesda, doesn't mean he would have followed their design principles. I am pretty confident that he would have always followed his own ideas and concepts. Even if he likes Bethesdas Fallout. Which is shown pretty clearly by his portfolio.

I think actions speak louder than words here. Like I said, look at the last games he worked on. And compare those to Fallout 4. A very different approach from the design and target audience I would say.

His games are usually about deep plots, intriguing narratives, interesting quests, good writing and role playing visible trough the dialog and gameplay, like the use of skill-checks. Could it be that he had a lot of fun with a shooter like Fallout 3 or even Fallout 4? Absolutely! Does it mean he would have made Fallout 3 as clone to Call of Duty? Most probably not.

But I can't analyse his thoughts or tell you what he is thinking really. All I can do, is to look at his last works.

*Edit
Also, Tim was very diplomatic with his answers about Fallout 3 and New Vegas, which is alright. I can't stress this enough. No one, should take a problem with Tim liking Fallout 3.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/showthread.php?198940-Tim-Cain-on-Fallout-3-New-Vegas-Troika-and-more

With the risk of repeating my self, he also made it clear, that he wouldn't have designed Fallout 3 in the same fashion as Bethesda did, given the chance.

I did enjoy both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I know that surprised some of my fans, who wanted me to hate the games and rail against their design choices (which I have repeatedly pointed out were different than the ones I would have made), but there is no arguing that more people enjoy the modern versions of the franchise than the older ones.

NMA is actively known across the Internet for being the paranoid, conspiracy theorist, website, that makes up any number of excuses to explain why the newer games are bad, and break the lore, even when the devs of the older games say they don't.

You are literally saying at this point that the people who made the games in the first place are wrong about what defines the games. And at the point at which you are trying to tell the people who made the games in the first place that they are wrong, you don;t care about the series, or know what its about, you only care about your personal perception of what the series should be about, and not what it actually is.

Tell me, what is the series about? Maybe you are right and I don't even know it! But I sure as hell know what it isn't. And I sure as hell know what I like.

 

[BairdEC]

You are literally saying at this point that the people who made the games in the first place are wrong about what defines the games. And at the point at which you are trying to tell the people who made the games in the first place that they are wrong, you don;t care about the series, or know what its about, you only care about your personal perception of what the series should be about, and not what it actually is.

So since the original authors cannot be wrong... Greedo shot first!

 

[Someguy37]

Just beacause he has no negative opinion about Bethesda, doesn't have to mean he would have followed their design principles.

He has even said he wouldn't have made the game the same way. That doesn't make the way Bethesda did it any less valid, because no developer things a game has to remain exactly one way forever, even if they do have their preferred way of making games.

His games are usually about deep plots, intriguing narratives, interesting quests, good writing

All of that is opinion based. I know plenty of people who hate everything Obsidian has done, and thing they are boring, poorly written, full of contrivances, and tons of other things. I find their games fun, but none of those are objectively measurable.

Tell me, what is the series about?

According to the Fallout vision statement
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

1. Mega levels of violence. (you had better give us that Mature rating right now)
   You can shoot everything in this game: people, animals, buildings and walls. You can make “called shots” on people, so you can aim for their eyes or their groin. Called shots can do more damage, knock the target unconscious or have other effects. When people die, they don’t just die – they get cut in half, they melt into a pile of goo, explode like a blood sausage, or several different ways – depending on the weapon you use. When I use my rocket launcher on some poor defenseless townsperson, he’ll know (and his neighbors will be cleaning up the blood for weeks!)
   *** This is the wasteland. Life is cheap and violence is all that there is. We are going to grab the player’s guts and remind him of this. ***[SUP][2][/SUP]
2. There is often no right solution. Like it or not, the player will not be able to make everyone live happily ever after.
3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.
4. The players actions affect the world.
5. There is a sense of urgency.
6. It's open ended.
7. The player will have a goal.
8. The player has control of his actions.
9. Simple Interface.
10. Speech will be lip-synched with the animation.
11. A wide variety of weapons and actions.
12. Detailed character creation rules.
13. Just enough GURPS material to make the GURPSers happy. The game comes first.
14. The Team is Motivated The team is motivated (Tim has incriminating documents on all of us)

 

[Khannis]

Just beacause he has no negative opinion about Bethesda, doesn't have to mean he would have followed their design principles.

He has even said he wouldn't have made the game the same way. That doesn't make the way Bethesda did it any less valid, because no developer things a game has to remain exactly one way forever, even if they do have their preferred way of making games.

His games are usually about deep plots, intriguing narratives, interesting quests, good writing

All of that is opinion based. I know plenty of people who hate everything Obsidian has done, and thing they are boring, poorly written, full of contrivances, and tons of other things. I find their games fun, but none of those are objectively measurable.

Tell me, what is the series about?

According to the Fallout vision statement
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

1. Mega levels of violence. (you had better give us that Mature rating right now)
   You can shoot everything in this game: people, animals, buildings and walls. You can make “called shots” on people, so you can aim for their eyes or their groin. Called shots can do more damage, knock the target unconscious or have other effects. When people die, they don’t just die – they get cut in half, they melt into a pile of goo, explode like a blood sausage, or several different ways – depending on the weapon you use. When I use my rocket launcher on some poor defenseless townsperson, he’ll know (and his neighbors will be cleaning up the blood for weeks!)
   *** This is the wasteland. Life is cheap and violence is all that there is. We are going to grab the player’s guts and remind him of this. ***[SUP][2][/SUP]
2. There is often no right solution. Like it or not, the player will not be able to make everyone live happily ever after.
3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.
4. The players actions affect the world.
5. There is a sense of urgency.
6. It's open ended.
7. The player will have a goal.
8. The player has control of his actions.
9. Simple Interface.
10. Speech will be lip-synched with the animation.
11. A wide variety of weapons and actions.
12. Detailed character creation rules.
13. Just enough GURPS material to make the GURPSers happy. The game comes first.
14. The Team is Motivated The team is motivated (Tim has incriminating documents on all of us)

Do you really, honestly, with a straight face, thinks Fallout 4 is following that vision? REALLY?

Maybe I am crazy after all...

 

[Someguy37]

Do you really, honestly, with a straight face, thinks Fallout 4 is following that vision? REALLY?

Maybe I am crazy after all...

Lets see theres
1. Lots of ivolence
2. Many of the quests have no objectively right way to complete them.
3. All non radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them, and even some radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them.
4. Your choice in factions can result in many changes in the game world, from the creation of new settlements, giant nuclear craters forms in the world, and your chosen faction occupying checkpoints and numerous positions across the wastes to kill shit.
5. the game does try to apply a sense of urgency in finding your child.
6. The game literally never ends.
7. The player has goals in the form of the MQ and SQ.
8. You do control your own actions.
9. The interface is simple, to the point people have complained its TOO simple.
10. Speech is lip synched
11. You have a number of weapons and weapon types to choose from.
12. There's plenty of ways to build your character.
13. Gurps got removed even back in Fallout 1.
14. their team obviously wanted to do the game.

You may not like the extent they have done some of those things, but all of those things are still in the game.

 

[Khannis]

Do you really, honestly, with a straight face, thinks Fallout 4 is following that vision? REALLY?

Maybe I am crazy after all...

Lets see theres
1. Lots of ivolence
2. Many of the quests have no objectively right way to complete them.
3. All non radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them, and even some radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them.
4. Your choice in factions can result in many changes in the game world, from the creation of new settlements, giant nuclear craters forms in the world, and your chosen faction occupying checkpoints and numerous positions across the wastes to kill shit.
5. the game does try to apply a sense of urgency in finding your child.
6. The game literally never ends.
7. The player has goals in the form of the MQ and SQ.
8. You do control your own actions.
9. The interface is simple, to the point people have complained its TOO simple.
10. Speech is lip synched
11. You have a number of weapons and weapon types to choose from.
12. There's plenty of ways to build your character.
13. Gurps got removed even back in Fallout 1.
14. their team obviously wanted to do the game.

You may not like the extent they have done some of those things, but all of those things are still in the game.

1. Yes, there is violence. They got that right, every time.
2. Totally like, kill Kellogg or... Kill Kellog? Ask the Railroad's help with a chip or... Ask the Railroad's help? Wow, many ways.
3. See above, and also, radiant quests. BILLIONS OF THEM.
4. Wow, the degree of reactivity is breathtaking! (Yes, I pressed X)
5. Yeah, sure. Like, if you don't.... What? Nothing happens! Have you even played the originals?
6. I'm willing to be a million dollars that's not what they meant.
7. ....Ok. We'll give this one the benefit of the doubt.
8. Sure, by saying "yes, yes, or yes", and trying to shoot essential NPCs. Totally not railroaded (Haha, see what I did there?)
12. And the game reacts to your character creation, to your skills, to your SPECIAL stats! (Yep, X again)
14. They sure wanted some money, didn't they?


Yadda, yadda, yadda... See the point yet?

 

[MercenarySnake]

Just beacause he has no negative opinion about Bethesda, doesn't have to mean he would have followed their design principles.

He has even said he wouldn't have made the game the same way. That doesn't make the way Bethesda did it any less valid, because no developer things a game has to remain exactly one way forever, even if they do have their preferred way of making games.

His games are usually about deep plots, intriguing narratives, interesting quests, good writing

All of that is opinion based. I know plenty of people who hate everything Obsidian has done, and thing they are boring, poorly written, full of contrivances, and tons of other things. I find their games fun, but none of those are objectively measurable.

Tell me, what is the series about?

According to the Fallout vision statement
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_vision_statement

1. Mega levels of violence. (you had better give us that Mature rating right now)
   You can shoot everything in this game: people, animals, buildings and walls. You can make “called shots” on people, so you can aim for their eyes or their groin. Called shots can do more damage, knock the target unconscious or have other effects. When people die, they don’t just die – they get cut in half, they melt into a pile of goo, explode like a blood sausage, or several different ways – depending on the weapon you use. When I use my rocket launcher on some poor defenseless townsperson, he’ll know (and his neighbors will be cleaning up the blood for weeks!)
   *** This is the wasteland. Life is cheap and violence is all that there is. We are going to grab the player’s guts and remind him of this. ***[SUP][2][/SUP]
2. There is often no right solution. Like it or not, the player will not be able to make everyone live happily ever after.
3. There will always be multiple solutions. No one style of play will be perfect.
4. The players actions affect the world.
5. There is a sense of urgency.
6. It's open ended.
7. The player will have a goal.
8. The player has control of his actions.
9. Simple Interface.
10. Speech will be lip-synched with the animation.
11. A wide variety of weapons and actions.
12. Detailed character creation rules.
13. Just enough GURPS material to make the GURPSers happy. The game comes first.
14. The Team is Motivated The team is motivated (Tim has incriminating documents on all of us)

Would you care to enlighten us how many of those points are featured in Fallout 4?

 

[Ninja]

3. All non radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them, and even some radiant side quests have multiple ways to complete them.

There are non-radiant quests? Whaaaaaaa?

 

[Crni Vuk]

I don't disagree with your list, but I can't say that many of those points actually play out well in Bethesdas version of Fallout. If you really want to understand it, I think a better place to start, would be here http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=35764, the history of Fallout. Here both Cain and Tim describe in detail their thought process and their target for the game. Not to mention ... there is one small, but VERY important point about that list.

This is the document detailing what Fallout was to be, written with management, marketing and sales departments of Interplay in mind (in order to get the project approved), and is a 14-point bulleted list (with some quotes):

I think, that part, shouldn't be ignored. And it is not a coinsidence that Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 concentrate on those parts the most. Like the violence.

But what is about statements like those:

"In a good RPG, you should be able to make a good variety of starting characters and then develop them in very different ways. Your choices should affect the game in meaningful ways, both in the ongoing game and in the ending you get. Of course, the game should be fun to play and easy to interact with, but that's true for every genre of game."

"Furthermore, Tim Cain wanted to emphasis role-playing by having the player control a single character in Fallout. It would force the player to make choices in character development, balancing positive and negative attributes. Cain felt that parties detached a player, and a single character would draw the player into his or her character. (ref) This vision of consequential role-playing would feature strongly in the finished game."

Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title?
Leonard Boyarsky: "I don't know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it's easy for me to say I wouldn't have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don't know what I would have said if the offer was made."

- I thought this quote was from Tim, well my bad, it was Boyarsky!

And there are also people (Gizmo I think?) that actually know more about the design documents of Fallout 1

 

[Someguy37]

snip

-I've read that before actually.
-I understand that vision statement has marketing in mind.
-I totally agree with what Tim said about a good RPG.
-I know many of the devs, Tim Cain included, have said they would have made Fallout 3 iso/turn based.

At the same time, Tim Cain has said he felt Bethesda did SPECIAL well in Fallout 3, and Chris A said he felt his skill matters in Fallout 3, so obviously they seem fine with it on that end as well.

And Fallout 4 isn't actually that different from 3, except SPECIAL means a bit more then it did in 3, since every perk is now tied to it. And they redid the skills, which largely worked on a 25/50/75/100 system in Fo3/NV, down to a 4-5 ranked perk which now simulates the effects of getting 25/50/75/100 skill levels + some additional effects added on.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Than I honestly don't know how you can argue in favour of Fallout 3 and 4.

 

[Someguy37]

Than I honestly don't know how you can argue in favour of Fallout 3 and 4.

So you don't understand how I can argue in favor of of games the devs have said they enjoyed, ound fitting to the Fallout universe, and have even complimented on their use of SPECIAL and skills?

I mean, besides Tim Cain saying he wouldn't have had FEV on the east coast, seeing it as a stretch, its basically been nothing but positives from them.

I find it pretty easy to say something fits in the series when many of the people who made the series say it does.

 

[TorontoReign]

Than I honestly don't know how you can argue in favour of Fallout 3 and 4.

So you don't understand how I can argue in favor of of games the devs have said they enjoyed, ound fitting to the Fallout universe, and have even complimented on their use of SPECIAL and skills?

I mean, besides Tim Cain saying he wouldn't have had FEV on the east coast, seeing it as a stretch, its basically been nothing but positives from them.

I find it pretty easy to say something fits in the series when many of the people who made the series say it does.

You really have a hard time reading between the lines don't you?

 

[Khannis]

You really have a hard time reading between the lines don't you?

You think?

 

[Someguy37]

You really have a hard time reading between the lines don't you?

Do you mean to ask if I have a hard time finding the same nonexistent "well I didn't REALLY like it!" conspiracy theories you do?

 

[TorontoReign]

You really have a hard time reading between the lines don't you?

Do you mean to ask if I have a hard time finding the same nonexistent "well I didn't REALLY like it!" conspiracy theories you do?

I think you lack the ability to tell if someone is being diplomatic due to professionalism. I also wonder if you actually watched the interview you are so fond of quoting.

Just to be clear. I think he did like it in some ways (most of us do like some parts) but you can clearly tell he wanted to say more but couldn't.

 

[Khannis]

You really have a hard time reading between the lines don't you?

Do you mean to ask if I have a hard time finding the same nonexistent "well I didn't REALLY like it!" conspiracy theories you do?

Wow, not-reading-between-the-lines-ception!