Problems with FO3 summed up with old quote
- Thread starter Eternal
- Start date
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I don't think it matters that Bethesda had different employees working on it's different games. So did Fallout. Leonard Boyarsky did the first one, and Tim Cain did the second one. The original point being made in regards to Bethesda is that they didn't "sell out," they simply went back to their roots.
As an aside, Bioware made the Baldur's Gate games, Black Isle did Planescape, Icewind Dale and the Fallouts.
As an aside, Bioware made the Baldur's Gate games, Black Isle did Planescape, Icewind Dale and the Fallouts.
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I never said he wasn't involved, but the lead design role shifted.
betamonkey
First time out of the vault
The teams, specifically the important roles, of Fallout 1 and 2 were drastically different. There's no denying that. And for something that came out just one year later and reused everything.. it was pretty noticeable. The quality was just not there. It almost felt like a rush job to capitalize on that 'RPG OF THE YEAR!' success.
They even had in huge letters on the back of the box "SEQUEL TO THE RPG OF THE YEAR!"
They even had in huge letters on the back of the box "SEQUEL TO THE RPG OF THE YEAR!"
chaosapiant
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I don't think anyone is arguing the quality of Fallout 2 as whole. I find the two games similar to the first two ninja turtles movies. The first one was dark, gritty, and very much like the original violent graphic novels it was based on. The second one was the same characters, similar story, yet much more campy and less "serious." The comparison is a bit of a stretch, I get that.
betamonkey
First time out of the vault
Ulysses said:
There is no dichotomy. It's not either 'as bad as EA' or 'not at all'. Fallout 2 suffered from more bugs, less consistency and relied less on its powerful setting and more on its zany shock value.
As a whole it was still a great game, but I cannot objectively deny the dropoff of quality and loss of some of the magic that made the original one of the standout games of the last decade.
But some people actually prefer 2 over 1.. and there is just no accounting for taste. At least they added a 'Take All' button.
Pope Viper said:I'd love to hear your explanation of why Planescape is "out of reach".
Planescape actually has one of the best RPG stories to date. And if you believe BS doesn't intend to develop games to make money, you're out of your mind. Why do you think they do it? Because they care about gamers?
Well, PS:T IS kind of out of reach. The game consumed a large amount of time and resuorces, and in the end the profit for it wasn't all that high. Think of making games like that as charity: it's a good thing to do, but it doesn't really pay you back.
Have you ever thought about "why some old games are out of reach?" for usuall gamers nowadays? Because nobody is mentioning them!
The same thing is happening with Bethsoft taking care of Fallout. The creators of the original Fallouts are dissapearing, just like Interplay and Black Isle because fucktards in Bethesda like Todd don't care to mention who originally created this game, and how it looked before.
Oblivion and even Morriwind's story (which I liked actually) is NOTHING comparing to the Planescape:Torment story. Also, originality, dialogue, and design. And yet, people are calling Bethesda's games the best in the history of RPGs?
It's just like many people are forgeting that the communism broke mainly thanks to Poland, not Germany.
Some shotty portal opened up. Everyone who was coming out from it turned mad. When you're passing the portal, you are finding yourself in a Morrowind-like world full of idiots.
On the end it turns out that the king of these isels is a schizopheric junky who turns out to be the same guy who's destroying this world every...year?
He's unstoppable! Strong!! ALMIGHTY!! BIG blue cristal-guy!!
And I killed him with few hits.
"What a twist!"
Public said:
Umm... Well..
Yeah, I have thought why and have explained why games like Planescape are in the past... We now have Voice overs, faster gameplay, more indepth landscapes. The language of games today has changed. There are always excpetions but Bethesda is a major developer. They build games on a scale where they have to please many audiences. And you know...all the better for them. They have end targets to meet just like we live cheque to cheque, trying to put food on our table. So at the end of the day of course it'll be different than a series that is 10 years stale. (in that it hasnt made any new ground, NOT that its a stale game, dont get all twitchy).
I never compared Oblivion to Torment. In fact I agreed that Torment had a better story. You need to chill... And on the whole Shivering Isles thing... you clearly didnt like anything about Oblivion, so naturally you wouldnt like TES:SI. But for anyone who did like Oblivion, Shattering Isles was on a whole different playing field. It had a twisted story, really cool envirnments and a interesting head NPC to interact with.
I'm sorry you didnt like it but I really enjoyed it a lot.
Zex
First time out of the vault
Beth's style isn't to make outstanding plotlines but to make an engaging game world. They seem to have a talent/passion to craft extremely detailed histories to flesh out their game worlds. It might not be a typical plot-driven RPG, but they did make some exquisite places that you would want to explore not for the plot, but for your own interest. Saying TES games are weak because it has no plot is like saying Fallout is poor because it isn't realtime. TES was more about the world than its people and it isn't fair to compare to other RPGs because I haven't seen an RPG that focuses more on world-lore over characterization.
I don't see this as a result of poor storytelling, just a decision to focus on something different. TES games (to me) were more about exploration fueled by a person's imagination than anything else, and I think this is simply what Beth likes to do.
I don't see this as a result of poor storytelling, just a decision to focus on something different. TES games (to me) were more about exploration fueled by a person's imagination than anything else, and I think this is simply what Beth likes to do.
So they focus on making world simulators?
They could have left some things in FO3 to make it more interesting. Weather, non-cookie cutter buildings.
Shouldn't an RPG focus more on a story rather than world building, especially if you're going to tout the game as an RPG?
They could have left some things in FO3 to make it more interesting. Weather, non-cookie cutter buildings.
Shouldn't an RPG focus more on a story rather than world building, especially if you're going to tout the game as an RPG?
Rev. Layle
A Smooth-Skin
Pope Viper said:
Nothing in an RPG requires "story building" - it is nice to have, esp. if that is what the players want. Not all players want that, even in the p&p world.
Hence sourcebooks for p&p RPGs with no story and ALL world building... and GMs who can make a random encounters with that information interesting for 3 hours with no story whatsoever (i had one of those GMs - he will be sorely missed).
I think it is a matter personal taste more than anything
It's quite obvious how they define RPGs.
Yes, wasteland, but that does not mean that there isn't rain, snow, fog, etc.
Nuclear war does not equal dry/shrivel/etc.
And I could have sworn I've walked through puddles, did those just magically appear?
Just another item Bethesda missed the boat on.
Yes, wasteland, but that does not mean that there isn't rain, snow, fog, etc.
Nuclear war does not equal dry/shrivel/etc.
And I could have sworn I've walked through puddles, did those just magically appear?
Just another item Bethesda missed the boat on.
Yes. Yes it is. But Bethesda didn't do that. They filled a wasteland to the brim with raiders, animals and abandoned shacks.Ihniwid said:
Which, I think, is Pope's point: there's a wasteland there that's filled with locations to give players something to do, thereby preventing the feeling of an actual wasteland. But the locations aren't interesting at all. There's nothing to do but kill stuff, usually.
'Story building' means allowing the player to create his own story. It isn't just about one main quest line, it means that the world you walk around allows for you to create your own story.Rev. Layle said:
You can do this through random encounters that are really interesting, or through a lot of dialogue and a big story. Fallout actually takes the previous approach much more than the second.
Rev. Layle said:
Oh for Chrissake, you had a GM that provided no story?! WTF?
I think it is a matter personal taste more than anything.
The whole point to an RPG is to allow role playing. This is accomplished by providing interesting locations, quests, etc via STORIES.
Rev. Layle
A Smooth-Skin
Pope Viper said:
*Sometimes* this GM had no story - *sometimes* he did - depended on the mood of the evening
We didn't care either way as long as we had fun. And you just said it... an RPG allows to role play. It can be accomplished by several ways, story is ONE way, a GOOD way, but not required.