Sarkus said:
So, why exactly did Bethesda go after this license, and even decide to increase their bid? And don't give the standard "money" answer. That makes no sense. The failure of FOBOS should make it very clear that just slapping "Fallout" on something won't make any money.
I thought it would have been obvious since FOT. With F

OS, it's easily obvious that some people don't pay attention well. Oh, hey...it's you again.
I doubt Bethesda would have shelled out money for the Fallout license without the intent to do something that would appeal to the existing fanbase.
What, like shallow fanservice? If they plan on changing the formula of TB/iso/SPECIAL, they're already running uphill and I doubt there's little else that could make it appeal in the eyes of the fans. The old-timers are those who do go around and spread word of mouth, and we do talk to the editors at other sites. We know how they feel. Did you ever wonder why more people jumped onto the prospect of a Fallout CRPG than a Fallout spin-off? I would think that it would be due to wanting another CRPG as good as Fallout, as the name implies, and not see someone take Fallout from its P&P RPG roots, again.
Yet again, you display no clue of game design, even in a superficial way. Yet you're trying to act as an apologist and if one game works well in a FP view, then it must be good for other games as well. Do I need to point out how stupid you sound (again), or is it obvious to even yourself at this point?
Visit message boards other than this one. You'll see that the response by Fallout fans to the possiblity that Bethesda's Fallout 3 might not be an isometric turn-based game is not so universally negative as it appears to be here.
The same was said about FOT and F

OS. A lot of those people wouldn't know how to think of design unless they are actually playing the game, as I've pointed out before. Quit with the empty waffling, please. We've heard it before for F

OS, and there managed to be someone who could put forth a more coherent argument than you've ever managed, someone who does have a clue about design.
You're still wholly ignorant as to the changes that would be required to the core of the game's design (including character system design) that will have to be implemented for any kind of view other than isometric or iso/adjustable, a fact that you've constantly put your brain on "Retarded" every time I've brought that up, and you've never really had a reply to that. I'm seriously thinking it is because you honestly have no idea how to.