Rosh talks about Bethesda

[God is Dog backwards]

http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=62450#62450

HHEEELP THIS IS A BAD DREAM.

Surely it's obvious what would ease our minds - the words, 'turn based' and 'isometric'.

 

[Metallikat]

Ahh, why are you guys even worrying about how stuff like game mechanics, story, humor and such will turn out? Even if Bethsoft somehow managed to stumble their way into a great game system, with a world class plot, great dialogue and the best NPC's ever put into digital form.. well.. it's Bethesda. They'll end up attaching whatever it is they create to a clunky, poorly optimized mess/behemoth of a graphic engine, that will require a computer blessed by the hand of our divine lord and creator Jesus Christ to even get a frame rate above 10. And that's standing still while looking at the ground mind you.
Even if they manage to create something great, you'll only be able to play it at a frame rate that doesn't cause your eyes to bleed and your brain to split open, 2 years down the road with state of the art hardware.

 

[Roshambo]

-]I dunno if that's really the best idea. I mean, constructive criticism after seeing something is one thing, but blasting a company when they have just shown smiles is something else.

I think I've already pointed out what they have or haven't done with this that they should have. Pete Hines' words were more damning than anything...that is until you get to Bethesda's release list. Other than TES, most of their other "RPG titles" look to be crap or have done so...flat and feel just as flat. I took a closer look at a couple of items in particular I didn't see in the preview I had of one game, but in the review it had concise examples of how the dialog iself was a crappy mess at times.

They keep harping on how great they are and how they plan on making the game great, etc. Yet they will go out of their way to use vague terms that just as easily apply to Morrowind...only more so, and claim to be making a game deserving of the originals.

I'm wanting to know how the fuck they plan on doing that, when their track record, especially in terms of support outside of TES, is working against them. That's why they had to put Morrowind into the press release, to give the fanboys something to think they have relevance to the Fallout franchise.

This is also on top of the wording, in many cases, leading to a definite possibility that the game will not be Morrowind with guns, but it will most likely have many of the same design points. We're waving the warning flags to tell them that this bullshit was tried before, and it failed. Unless they want to be known for asshatting Fallout into a dungeon crawler that has little play style like the originals, and don't want to be numbered among Interplay, MicroForte, and Chuck Cuevas, then they can treat the property correctly and adhere to the design concepts laid previously. History and common sense dictate this, I don't care how optomistic someone is. This is yet another time Fallout is in someone's hands other than the original creators, and it looks quite doubtful because the design styles outside of TES (which are quite contrary to Fallout's) have been really poorly welcomed by the gaming media.

The problem is, so many people seem to know us, and people either fight us, or believe us. But all in all, changing so many people's opinions of the game before we even see it... doesn't seem like a good deal.

Actually, I'm trying to get across the point that the fans, those who have spent time to cover the game and do enjoy the game enough to learn the aspects of its design, talked to the developers on forum, talked to them via email, IRC, or whatever, they know what they want.

They might not think of how real-time combat or a different perspective would completely change the design and tone of a game, but they apparently enjoyed Fallout and how it was made enough to follow this subject, and that is what matters. It's hard to lie otherwise when the proof is right there.

Fallout already has two things going for it. It is distinctive, and it has a very interested and large fan base. The large fan base wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the many ways of playing the game. Therefore, even the simplest person could have a bit of fun by killing everything and playing through that way. That is both the beauty and the bane of a P&P RPG system. It allows you to roleplay, but then some moron comes along and wants it to be more like CS because he could shoot things with guns that go BANG! D'hurhurr!

Munchkinism and Monty Haul both don't belong in Fallout, only in BioWare games.

Yes, we do have a history of failed games...

So does Bethesda. More than we've had to endure, oddly enough. I thought they were supposed to be amazing or something, but the only great thing close to an RPG I've seen from them was TES. Everything else didn't fare anywhere as well.

but there are some sequels/developements that changed hands and people sung praises when they got to the shelves. Don't ask me for examples, because I don't remember...

Fallout 2, for an easy example. It was a bit of a mixed bag with the bugs and lame easter eggs, but it still had a lot of good design in it, even if it was misplaced.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You sure? Play any PC RPG and there is a vast variation on how good the char does in combat. The player decides what skills/spells to use when, weather to buff himself (or chem etc in the case of FO) before combat, what to equip themselves with.

You mean "Play most any CRPG". Fallout did allow you to win the game just on speech and charm alone. Sure, most people will play combat characters in Fallout, but that's because of basically what you said. Nearly all CRPGs involve combat. Many players are actually used to having combat being just around every dark corner. In fact, Fallout is the only CRPG I can think of where combat is part of the game but also completely optional. Well, you can do that in Temple of Elemental Evil as well, but it requires a rogue with a lot of stealth.

A bad player of FO might not aim with their gun because they dont think it will have any effect, a good player knows it has an effect and uses it accordingly.

I prefer Fast Shot to aiming, typically. Then again, using the One Hander trait and aiming at the eyes of someone with a pistol from across the map is nice as well.

A good player knows what kind of character he wants to play and what combination of things it takes him to get that special build, pardon the pun. That's just something I liked about Fallout. If you wanted to play a pistol packing gambler, you could do that and win the game effectively as such. If you wanted to play a smooth talking person who backs up what he says with a 12 pound hammer, you can.

ALL rpgs rely on the skill of the player to know how best to use his charecter. Once you start taking choice away from the player you get blandness.

Back on the subject of CRPGs and combat, this is one thing I have a problem with Bethesda doing the game. Bethesda has never done a CRPG where combat wasn't the major focus of the thing. Sure, they can write quests involving killing bandits or dealing with a tomb filled with undead that must be slain, but can they do quests that have multiple methods of doing them? Troika can. Obsidian can to a lesser extent. BioWare's making strides towards this. But can Bethesda?

 

[pulp]

“We’re extremely excited about this opportunity and what it means both for Bethesda and for Fallout fans around the world,” said Vlatko Andonov, president of Bethesda Softworks. “Fallout is one the great RPG franchises. Millions of Fallout games have been sold worldwide, and fans have been eagerly awaiting the release of a Fallout 3 title. Bethesda’s proven expertise in this genre, building on our experience and the tremendous success we have enjoyed with our cutting-edge Elder Scrolls® series, will enable us to create the next chapter of Fallout that is worthy of the franchise.”

Fallout 3 will be developed by Bethesda along with the next chapter of The Elder Scrolls, both under the direction of Todd Howard, executive producer of The Elder Scrolls.

Seriously, for shamelessly using the "RPG is anything with stats and um...some other stuff" definition of the CRPG genre, Vlatko Andonov loses more than a few points of credibility. Fallout and TES are in wholly different sub-genres it is obvious to anyone who has played both. From the above and with how development usually happens with someone working on two projects at the same time - you can bet that they will be similar in many regards. It's funny that they mention experience, when their previous games have little to no resemblence of what made Fallout good. If they were looking to try and get into computer P&P RPG development, they picked a really inappropriate title to start with.

There's far more to fear. Watch Andonov's words carefully...

"...one of the great RPG franchises.."
"...Millions of Fallout games have been sold worldwide..."

Andonov probably doesn't have a clue what FO's about, but what's bone-chilling is the fact that Bethesda might have purchased FO first as a potential money-spinner rather than a tradition worth continuing on its own merits.

I feel my heart sinking..