Some Thoughts about new fallout

Guest · May 14, 2000

well goly ge wiss gosh darn yep

Guest · May 15, 2000

RE: Bigotry

>>>No, the point I was making
>>>was that of cross-genre movement.
>>> Obviously you missed that
>>>point.
>>
>>No, I got the point.
>>But you used the most
>>ridiculous analogy to try and
>>make it. Racing has
>>nothing to do with the
>>Fallout universe. The BOS
>>and combat does.
>
>A tactical strategy is just as
>un-Fallout as a racing game.

Why is that? How did you undergo Combat in FO 1 & 2? Surely you would've used some tactic/strategy rather than simply randomly blasting away at any nearby enemy...

> Just as how FOT:BOS
>is taking a tiny facet
>and making it completely different
>I can tie in a
>racing game too:
>
>"With the lack of cars in
>the world, only a few
>have them and compete against
>each other in huge desert
>races. Since this is
>the future and all that
>is at stake is money,
>there are no rules, so
>have fun!"
>
>I just tied it into Fallout.

Brilliant! You should be in marketing. How can you be so ignorant to actually think that this is the depth of the tie ins between FO2 and BOS.

> Is it Fallout however?
> Is it a high
>quality standard of RPG we
>have come to expect from
>Fallout, that we base other
>RPGs off of? Not
>no, HELL NO. And
>that's what FOT:BOS does.
>
What is it with you guys and your sole argument of "BOS isn't an RPG hence it is bad" FO3 is coming, and perhaps you should show some patience.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I know 100% of those that
>>>>>have played Wasteland since 1984
>>>>>would be thoroughly disgusted.
>>>>
>>>>Sure, if it were a racing
>>>>game. But like I
>>>>said, that is an inaccurate
>>>>analogy.
>>>
>>>Like I said, you missed the
>>>point entirely.
>>
>>Like I said, your point was
>>silly and ridiculous. So I
>>guess you missed my point
>>entirely too

>
>It isn't an inaccurate analogy.
>FOT:BOS is just as stupid
>an idea, as immense a
>clash of genre, to Fallout
>as a racing game would
>be.
>
See above. BTW have you actually done any research on BOS? Check out the webpage w/screenshots and tell me why BOS is such a different concept/genre to the original?

>>>>>But aside from that, my biggest
>>>>>beef is that they are
>>>>>making something with the NAME
>>>>>of Fallout, but none of
>>>>>the standards set forth by
>>>>>it.
>>>>
>>>>How do you know about what
>>>>standards they are using -
>>>>the game isn't even out
>>>>yet. The fact that
>>>>Chris Taylor of the original
>>>>FO is on board should
>>>>count for something, right?
>>>
>>>It will be an advanced-tech hack-and-slash.
>>> The emphasis is on
>>>combat. Fallout's emphasis was
>>>on the story.
>>
>>Again, mischaracterization. I doubt that
>>JA2 and Xcom are considered
>>hack and slash.
>
>Hack and slash is meant to
>mean "combat oriented," not to
>mean real-time 3rd person killing.
> Your game fits right
>in.
>
So combat isn't your cup of tea. Big deal. I know when I played both Fallouts I always had combat oriented characters.

>>Besides
>>the game is _not_ an
>>RPG. It is silly
>>to condemn a game for
>>what it is not trying
>>to be.
>
>And that's exactly what's wrong with
>it.
>
Shallow and Bigoted, do you guys play anything other than RPGs?

>>>>>Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant
>>>>>to be, originally. You could
>>>>>finish the game without killing
>>>>>a thing. That's because if
>>>>>you wanted to play the
>>>>>role of a thief or
>>>>>a diplomat, or whatever, you
>>>>>could.
>>>>
>>>>You're right. But what says
>>>>they can't or shouldn't extend
>>>>the franchise? What's wrong
>>>>with a tactical combat game
>>>>if it is done well?
>>>
>>>Then why not a shooter, a
>>>racing game, a sim, etc.
>>>etc.
>>
>>I have no problem with them
>>developing any game that fits
>>in the FO universe

>> Though I doubt that
>>racing or a sim would
>>fit

or be successful.
>
>Your game fits in about as
>well as any of the
>aforementioned "ideas." Hell I
>could link them all to
>fit in the "Fallout Universe"
>but geez, does that make
>it anything more than a
>game with Fallout motif, a
>sorry excuse for a connection
>to the rest of Fallout,
>and the Fallout name?
>
Once again you are simply proving your own single mindedness. It does not add any credibility to your argument by simply holding the "BOS isn't and RPG" stance.

>>>>>1. They use the BOS because
>>>>>that is one of the
>>>>>only groups that might have
>>>>>the tech to make/repair cars/weapons
>>>>>(among some others).
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, so that's a beef?!
>>>
>>>The BOS was trying to keep
>>>a little bit out of
>>>sight, and to themselves.
>>>They didn't want to get
>>>into any full-blown conflicts.
>>>
>>>Oops, story clash number one.
>>
>>Ooops, we actually know very little
>>about the BOS history, only
>>a bare outline. They
>>did fight the Masters Army,
>>and who knows what happened
>>after that? Do you?
>> Or what happened after
>>the Enclave. If you
>>can't answer those questions, then
>>you don't know there is
>>a conflict

>
>I suppose you could also have
>a conflict in the remnants
>of south-east Asia too correct?
> Hell ANYTHING could happen
>technically, oh wait, how about
>throwing this conflict say, 20
>years before Fallout 1?
>Your game will simply be
>an anomoly in the chain
>of events surrounding Fallout.
>
>And we're not dicussing what went
>on, we're discussing the character
>of the BOS itself, that
>they like to keep to
>themselves, have a low profile.
>
Did you ever wonder why the BOS were so diminished in FO2? And why do you seem to think that they are now high-profile? I suggest you read a bit more about what BOS is all about before you continue to put it down

>
>>So go ahead and tell me
>>what happened during those time
>>periods then.
>
>>>>>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
>>>>>gone. So now it's a
>>>>>strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind
>>>>>the original PURPOSE for having
>>>>>a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now,
>>>>>I doubt that even half
>>>>>of Interplay even knows what
>>>>>Wasteland is anymore. BIS does,
>>>>>I know that.
>>>>
>>>>How is the post apoc theme
>>>>gone? That comment makes
>>>>no sense. So what's
>>>>your point? And please
>>>>don't continue to be inaccurate
>>>>about this game. It
>>>>is not some click fest
>>>>FP "shooter". It a
>>>>tactical combat game a la
>>>>JA2 or XCOM - both
>>>>of which are classics and
>>>>great games.
>>>>
>>>>I think such a game, fighting
>>>>mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in
>>>>the Wasteland would be great.
>>>> No one has done
>>>>such a game. Seems
>>>>pretty unique to me -
>>>>and very post apoc

>>>
>>>Now here is where I stop
>>>saing you are naive, and
>>>start saying you are stupid.
>>> So you go out
>>>and kill shit. HOW
>>>FUCKING ORIGINAL IS THAT?!
>>
>>Who's stupid? Where did I
>>say original? Perhaps you
>>have trouble reading? Perhaps
>>you're losing it here

>
>Look above: "No one has
>done such a thing" and
>"seems pretty unique to me."
> The definition for "original"
>is "something that has never
>been done or created before."
> Who's losing it here?
>
So tell me...who has created a post-apocalyptic tactical strategy game? And how original was Fallout? It is based on Wasteland and uses a Diablo-style graphics engine.

>
>>BTW since it has never been
>>done before, I will say
>>it now, a combat game
>>in a post apoc world
>>is original. You can
>>call me stupid now if
>>it will make you feel
>>better

>
>Okay, and how original is Duke
>Nukem compared to DOOM?
>You still do the same
>thing: Kill stuff.
>
You seem to have a very shallow viepoint on most subjects. Duke is the same GENRE as DooM but as you may have noticed the gameplay was quite different.

>Your game is as original as
>a MOD of XCOM to
>look like Fallout. That
>is NOT originality.
>
Time will tell, and I am confident that BOS will be quite different to XCOM, while still retaining similar ideas.

>Originality is a change of concept
>and gameplay. According to
>you, FOT:BOS is the same
>as XCom in a Post-Apoc
>world. Is that originality?
>
See above once again...
>
>>>I know it's a tactical game,
>>>but aside from the scenery
>>>and the overlaid story, it
>>>will have naught else to
>>>do with a wasteland setting.
>>> Apparently, the meaning is
>>>lost on you.
>>
You seem to now be implying that BOS will be completely devoid of storyline and simply be a tactical game with no plot or goals for the player to achieve. It is an extension of Fallout not something that is merely using the trademark.

>>The problem you have is that
>>it is not an RPG.
>> That fact that that
>>does not bother is apparently
>>lost on you

>>So, why does it have
>>to be an RPG?
>>
>>>
>>>From your statements, I can easily
>>>see that you are not
>>>of the old-school.
>>
>>I'm glad you can see at
>>least one thing easily

>
>Which shows how mindless and clueless
>you are to what Fallout
>had created. Maybe you
>should talk to someone at
>BIS and get a clue.
>
Fallout created an intriguing and engrossing world where the character played a part in the goings on of a small part of that world. Why is it so wrong that THE SAME WORLD is going to be expanded upon? BOS is not perverting the plot or universe of Fallout, it is simply opening new windows to it...
>
>I'm even wondering if you know
>what "old-school" even means.
>
>>Nah, I'm just not of the
>>emotionally overwrought school

>
>No need to wonder now.
>
>>>*sigh*
>>>Which Fo3 will have to ignore
>>>the presence of FT: BOS.
>>
>>*sigh* I don't understand. Why
>>will it have to be
>>ignored? FO3 might even
>>take place somewhere else in
>>the US and have nothing
>>to do with old storyline.
>> Or this story might
>>have to do with an
>>expansion of the BOS into
>>another area of the US.
>>There are _lots_ of possibilities.
>
>Haven't been around the block much
>lately huh?
>
Please go and read the BOS page now. It takes place in the mid-USA not in California. It is not trying to extend the story behind the Vault Dweller, but rather offering a different Viewpoint with a different emphasis

>Here's a good example: Ultima
>Online and Ultima.
>
>If you ever visit the Ultima
>community you will learn that
>UO is considered an anomoly,
>a shunned game with the
>Ultima name attached.
>
>Why? Because it is simple not
>Ultima. It may take
>place *somewhere* if not *nowhere*
>in the Ultima *planet* have
>Ultima *classes* and names, but
>it is still not Ultima
>in *essence*. Ultima was
>considered a high-power RPG of
>its time, a game that
>people had come to know
>as a quality RPG.
>
>UO was a good idea in
>conception: An online game
>where you can interact with
>your buddies over the internet
>and engross yourself in the
>Ultima world. Instead what
>did they get? A
>game that wasn't even CLOSE
>to Ultima. Instead of
>an engrossing storyline you go
>to your buddy's guild and
>gain levels in a room,
>instead of taking part in
>the lives of the characters
>around you, you try to
>dodge PKs.
>
>And now the rest of Ultima's
>universe ignores this little anomoly
>because it simply doesn't fit
>into Ultima *anywhere*, in concept
>or in story. It's
>simply a milking machine created
>to soak up the cash
>from Online cattle, people with
>no conception of what Ultima
>is/was.
>
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Origin tried to do something truly ambitious and original. The idea behind UO is fantastic, but the execution encountered many problems. PK's ruined the experience to a large degree, but that is due to idiotic individuals, and not the concept as a whole. Origin tried something very different, and it didn't quite work as well as planned, but paved the way for other titles. UO was never a milking machine, and the way you seem to think, is that anything new is bad. I suppose you also think that Quake was a milking machine for the DooM audience because it was realtime 3D? Quake was a huge step forward in tech, and without titles like it and UO, then the games industry would stagnate and we would be offered nothing new at all...

>And now the people who play
>UO believe that's all that
>Ultima really is: a shabby
>online game, they have no
>clue as to what Ultima
>is.
>
Quit complaining. Every game has this happen. Not everone has the luxury of being an old-school gamer. Would you prefer it if there were titles that you could only buy if you have been playing games for X amount of years, and titles for new-schoolers? Do you have a problem with people who play Half-Life but have never played Wolf3D? Wake up to yourself. There are more and more people getting into games, and it is inevitable that they will play games without knowing the prior history

>> 2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.
>>
Explain once and for all why BOS no longer has "the Wasteland Feel". It has so many links to FO2 and is set in the same world. The emphasis and genre of the game have changed, not the setting...

>>It doesn't change anything other than
>>it is not an RPG.
>
>And that changes everything.
>
In your mind, but more open-minded people will probably welcome a different slant on a great series of games.

>> There is nothing in
>>BOS that says FO3 cannot/willnot
>>be made.
>
>But there is something that says
>that FOT:BOS should NOT be
>made.
>
And what is that? A handful of narrow-minded individuals such as yourselves. Hardly a persuasive reason.

>>And frankly, if done well, I'd
>>love a "futuristic strategy amidst
>>blasted buildings" myself.
>
>I wonder if you've even played
>Fallout.. maybe your friend told
>you the storyline? You
>seem to have no cognition
>of Fallout other than its
>motif.
>
You guys do not have any superiority over anyone based on the simple fact that you have played Fallout 1 and 2. You have no vested interests in the Fallout trademark and as such, should not think that you own it. I doubt anyone would be here on your board if they hadn't played Fallout.

>>>Fighting amidst ruined buildigs. Who
>>>cares?
>>>It might as well BE X-Com,
>>>but with a different setting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you say "clone"?
>>
>>If done well, can you say,
>>"Sounds great!"

>>
>>But I think you'd say "Less
>>filling!"

>
>A rose by any other name
>would smell as sweet.
>
>An unoriginal game under any other
>motif is still a clone.
>
>
Well by your definitions every single FPS is a Wolf3D clone, every RTS a Dune2 clone, and I guess Fallout would be a clone of some game or another too...

>>>Again, let's just make a shooter,
>>>a racer, a sim, etc.
>>> By your logic, it's
>>>allright to do so.
>>
>>I see no problem with a
>>closely related game, which this
>>one is. A racer
>>or sim would make little
>>sense given the universe.
>
>Closely related? Hardly. Since
>when does tactical strategy and
>RPG mix?
>
The combat in Fallout is essentially tactical strategy. Tactical Strategy involves controlling a team of unique characters with their own stats, it makes use of items, it has the player working toward a set of goals in a non-linear fashion. It is pretty damn close if you ask me.

>>>You kill things. Big whoop.
>>> Fallout was not intended
>>>to be a combat game,
>>>it stressed the story.
>>>For you not to see
>>>the inherent problems makes it
>>>clear that you are a
>>>"new" RPG player. "Perfect
>>>compliment", by stressing something that
>>>was not the focus of
>>>the originals?
>>
>>So why does every Fallout game
>>have to be an RPG?
>
>Because Fallout is a story, not
>a world. It is
>a story of the Vault
>Dweller and his lineage within
>a Fallout World. It's
>taking Calvin and Hobbes and
>making a book about his
>uncle.
>
If that book is intriguing, then what is the problem?

>>A compliment by its very nature
>>is similar but different, btw.
>> So, yes it would
>>be a compliment - just
>>one you don't like.
>
>Compliments are also supposed to be
>beneficial. FOT:BOS is a
>cash cow. Interplay management
>looked at Fallout and said
>to themselves: Hey, the basic
>structure has been laid out,
>we have our basic interface,
>and have already worked out
>the combat algorithms, let's just
>make a quick game and
>some quick revenue off the
>strategy community.
>
>This is not complimenting to Fallout's
>lineage.
>
Well judging from the fanbase's reaction it would seem more like Interplay is taking quite a few risks here. The game is being developed by a group of unknowns, it is not an RPG, and may not sell well at all. If interplay were really selling out, they would've given the FO3 project to someone other than BIS.

>>>As I asked Skynet, do you
>>>have a clue as to
>>>why Fallout was made?
>>
>>To tell a story, to let
>>the player play a role
>>in the Wasteland, to be
>>someone else. To be
>>a part of a different,
>>seemingly living universe. To
>>have an impact on the
>>world in which he participates.
>> Good enough?
>
>Good, at least you have some
>inkling to what Fallout is.
>
>
>>But none of that means I
>>can't enjoy a tactical combat
>>game in the Fallout universe.
>
>And hell, that doesn't mean I
>can't enjoy a RACING game
>in the Fallout universe either.
> Or wait, how about
>that Mechwarrior idea I had?
>BOS vs the Chinese scientists.
>
You are deliberately picking fecetious ideas here to try and prove a weak point. Tactical combat is not far fetched from Fallout at all, but your idiotic suggestions are...
>
>
>>>>Again, you are not describing the
>>>>game accurately. It is not
>>>>a "shooter". It is
>>>>not RT, and it is
>>>>not FP. It is
>>>>a tactical combat game with
>>>>RPG elements. It is
>>>>operating in the Fallout universe,
>>>>so I fail to see
>>>>how it is counter to
>>>>the basis of Fallout or
>>>>its standards.
>>>
>>>Again, if you can only see
>>>that Fallout was made for
>>>the combat, I pity you.
>>
>>No Fallout wasn't just about combat
>>which is what made it
>>so interesting, but this game
>>isn't a Fallout RPG, for
>>the millioneth time - and
>>I have no problem with
>>that, no matter how much
>>I'd love to have FO3.
>
>And for not being an RPG,
>that's what's wrong with it.
>
Very shallow. Your argument has as much depth as a kiddies wading pool, and is probably just as full of piss.
>
>>Gosh, there are perhaps some things
>>I should be pitied about,
>>maybe, but this isn't one
>>of them. It's not
>>like it's a crucial part
>>of life is it?
>
>No, but we are not debating
>that are we? And
>he's pitying YOU for lacking
>the cognition to see that
>Fallout created something new from
>something old: a true
>to P&P RPG with something
>that set it appart:
>It didn't require combat.
>Thus the game achieved something
>that really hadn't been done
>for CRPGs.
>
So you are telling me that you played Fallout and Fallout2 without engaging in combat? Did you tell the Master to simply kill himself? Did you politely ask the Insects in the trials of Arroyo to let you past? What about the Oilrig? Did you simply use your speech skill to convince the Enclave not to attack you? Wake up.
>
>And now a contradicting variant on
>Fallout is being made.
>What does this say?
>It says that Fallout is
>not combat oriented.
>
Contradicting Variant? what are you thinking, there are no contradictions. BOS has to work around Fallout1 & 2's plot, it can't simply create it's own.
>
>>Perhaps you need to step away
>>from that keyboard and take
>>a chill man if you
>>are pitying someone about their
>>opinion of a _game_ .
>
>It's not the opinion, it's the
>lack of cognition behind the
>opinion.
>
If there is anyone with a lack of understanding, it is you guys. Go read the BOS page NOW!

>>Maybe even role play real life
>>for a while . .
>
>Hilarious, he can't come up with
>a real argument so he's
>using the cliché "I have
>a life and you don't"
>routine. Get off it.
>
>
>>>Cattle come in herds. I
>>>said fans. OF which,
>>>the old-school return to Classic
>>>RPGs is what the intent
>>>of Fallout was.
>>
>>Yeah, let's just call everyone who
>>disagrees with us "cattle" when
>>it disproves your assertion, right?
>
>No, it's meant to imply the
>dramatic push for killing games.
> These "cattle" are the
>people who have no sense
>or want of an enveloping
>story or game.
>
>They are the kind of people
>who would rather watch TV
>than read a good book.
> Laziness of mind.
>
You seem to think that BOS is going to be a game where the player simply kills with no rhyme nor reason (kind of like an american schoolkid) But it is so much more. Do your homework then come back to us.
>
>It is a proven fact that
>the intelligence of a group
>of people goes as the
>inverse of the number of
>people in the group.
>Also, the more something has
>in common with many people,
>the more basic it is.
>
Granted, but the greatest strategy game of all time is chess. Chess requires a lot of intelligence, whereas pen and paper RPGs simply rely on the imagination. Both are closely linked, but BOS will be much more of a thinking man's game than the killfest you seem to picture it as.
>
>This is the case with many
>games, notable shooters. Nearly
>every gamer likes shooters, hell
>I like them in their
>genre. Fallout appeals to
>a certain type of people.
> Expand the Fallout universe
>and you'll have people buying
>the games they like, not
>the other games in the
>universe.
>
So obviously someone who plays BOS will have no interest in Fallout 1,2 and 3. You argue that people will buy BOS because of the name, but you are also trying to say BOS players will not buy Fallout.
>
>>Easy way out. And just
>>some more pompousity on your
>>part.
>
>Mooo mooooo..
>
>I guess to you, a demand
>for mind-enlarging games is considered
>pompous. Tell me, did
>you get most of the
>analogies in Fallout?
>
As I said before Strategy games have more emphasis on thinking than RPG's
>
>>>Oh, yes. Draw in those
>>>that like to kill things,
>>>so we can listen to
>>>how they complain about not
>>>having super guns and having
>>>to go through dialog.
>>
>>Diablo/BG fans will not play BOS.
>> It is more like
>>Xcom/JA2, both of which are
>>hardcore strat games, and appeal
>>to hardcore gamers.
>
>Correction: Tactical strategy players.
>
>> Just
>>the type of people that
>>might like a Fallout if
>>introduced to it. And
>>how do I know so.
>> Because I am one.
>
>No, they bought the game because
>they like strategy games, what
>would make them want to
>buy a game completely out
>of their genre? Will
>they try the older Fallout
>games? Probably not, hell
>most aren't even on game
>shelves anymore.
>
I am growing tired of your one-sided stance here

>>I love hardcore strat games.
>>Picked FO on a whim
>>because I like the genre
>>and I got it cheap.
>> I think a well
>>done strat game could draw
>>in others like me.
>
>Draw in others that just buy
>a game because it was
>cheap?
>
>I bought Fallout because it was
>a dynamic RPG. I
>wanted a high quality of
>RPG games. I was
>sick of games that relied
>on tried-and-proven tactics that get
>old. People who buy
>RPGs especially of the class
>associated with Fallout, buy the
>game because they're looking for
>that type of game.
>
I bought Fallout the day it was released I have played it through innumerable times, and did the same when Fallout2 was released. I will buy both BOS and FO3 because I enjoy the premise of both genres.

>>Unless "old school" RPGers with an
>>innate sense of superiority drive
>>us off? Think that
>>is a good idea?
>
>A little defensive are we?
>We want to preserve what
>makes a game great.
>Not promoting what makes a
>game popular.
>
Surely a game must hold some appeal to become popular. And why is BOS so low-profile if it is simply a marketing strategy?
>
>Compare teeny-bopper music to classical.
>What is more sophisicated and
>higher quality? But what
>is more popular now?
>
Granted, but what if Music had never taken new directions, and classical harpsichord was the only thing to listen to? There is nothing wrong with evolution, although I will agree that the Top40 is a devolution of music. However there are many talented musicians around these days that still sell on their own merits...
>
>>>>Well, so what if the Diablo
>>>>people wanted hack and slash?
>>>> A PS:T or FO
>>>>will never appeal to that
>>>>crowd. Does that mean
>>>>the games we like are
>>>>going to disappear? Perhaps
>>>>not if we can expand
>>>>the fan base with games
>>>>like this.
>>>
>>>Now here you really show how
>>>naive you can be.
>>
>>And how pompous you can be.
>
>You're being naive because you expect
>that making this game will
>only promote the other games
>and FO3. It won't.
> In fact all it
>does is make people want
>to play *OTHER* tactical strategies.
> You'll see more players
>flocking to XCOM after this,
>not to Fallout RPGs.
>
>Don't you see this? Stop
>the naivity.
>
Stop with you narrow-mindedness. Explain how Fallout players will play BOS and then not go back to RPGs, and how strategy game players will play BOS, but have no interest in the rest of the series. Most people are aware that spin-off's are inferior to the original product, and so they will get into Fallout as well.

>>>Marketing and the higher-ups will say
>>>screw the one that makes
>>>the less money, in favor
>>>of what rakes it in.
>>> So yes, if BOS
>>>is an immense hit and
>>>appeals to the droves of
>>>hack and slash kiddies, then
>>>Fo3 is as good as
>>>dead.
>>
>>You know as little about the
>>stratgame genre as you claim
>>I know about the RPG
>>genre. You really are
>>"naive". Hack and slash
>>kiddies have never been drawn
>>to JA2/Xcom type games.
>>Those games are played by
>>hardcore strat gamers - as
>>I noted above, just the
>>type that might be attracted
>>to a Fallout RPG, like
>>I was.
>
>FOT:BOS is hack and slash.
>The emphasis is to kill,
>not develope your character and
>storyline. It's a hack
>and slash as opposed to
>RTS-type because you're controlling the
>same characters all the time
>but trying to kill stuff.
>
You will now have a character base to develop. If you had played XCOM or Jagged Alliance, you would discover that character development is an important part.
>
>Naive people would call that an
>RPG, much like calling those
>"RPG" mod maps made in
>Starcraft RPGs.
>
Yeah so what? Naive people call Diablo an RPG. Naive people call Team Fortress "Deathmatch" Naive people call Tactical Strategy Hack-n-Slash.

>>>Fallout Arena: Killing Tournament.
>>>Why stop at one cross genre,
>>>as it would only help
>>>and expand the universe, as
>>>per your point.
>>>If you believe that, you are
>>>incredibly naive.
>>
>>You really like throwing that "naive"
>>word around don't you.
>
>If the shoe fits...
>
>>Well, perhaps with your all
>>knowing sense of superiority, "pompous"
>>describes you best.
>
>So it's called pomposity if someone
>wants to preserve something of
>a higher standard from drifting
>with the masses?
>
What are you preserving? When Fallout 3 comes out, We will all still buy it, but BOS gives us something to do until then.

>>Go ahead, if you want, keep
>>up that "old school" sense
>>of superiority. Drive away
>>those that might be allies,
>>who might be attracted to
>>your genre, like myself.
>
>Allies? You speak of this
>like a war. The
>fact is that people stick
>to their genre. If
>they want tactical strategy, they'll
>stick to it. "Fallout"
>isn't going to draw people
>to FOT:BOS, hell most of
>the people buying FOT:BOS have
>never even played the other
>two. It's like UO,
>about 95% of the UO
>players have never played Ultima.
> Like sticks with like.
>
If people stick to their genre then obviously none of us will touch BOS because it is not an RPG. YOU stick to YOUR genre. The rest of us are always a bit more open-minded.
>
>>Yeah, that's a smart way to
>>get better RPG's.
>
>It's a better way to PRESERVE
>better games.
>
>>Maybe I should go try Diablo
>>instead - if you hate
>>it, it's got to have
>>something going for it, right?
>> Is that really what
>>you want? If not,
>>then I suggest you get
>>off your high horse.
>
>Actually, Diablo may appeal to your
>shallow mind. You obviously
>have no mind for Fallout,
>or even an RPG.
>I wonder if you even
>read books.
>
Diablo, while it was a very dull and idiotic game, got people into the genre. I told people that Fallout was an intellectual version of Diablo and they went and bought it...
>
>>>But if Interplay Marketing and management
>>>decide to make something that
>>>makes more money, we will
>>>see BOS 2 more likely
>>>than another real Fallout sequel.
>>
>>And in the end, there is
>>little you or I can
>>do about it, other than
>>support good games.
>
>And that's a sad thing.
>I guess as the decisions
>move higher up the connectivity
>between decision and product goes
>down. Fallout is only
>a name to Interplay.
>
Do you seriously think BOS is going to do better than Fallout?
>
>>>>>Fallout, the game that brought back
>>>>>the traditions of a Classic
>>>>>RPG and did so well
>>>>>because of that....
>>>>>
>>>>>Rest in Peace."
>>>>
>>>>Ya just can't please some people.
>>>>
>
>It helps if it has something
>to please them with.
>
>-Xotor-
>
Be pleased with FO3, and if the rest of us want to open ourselves to new thing, so be it...

Saint_Proverbius · May 15, 2000

Where's the other side, Rosh?

I note you only posted the posts from DAC that agree with your position. In fact, there's quite a few counterpoints to the point you mentioned.

Roshambo · May 15, 2000

Those were my posts:

Which I mirrored because I didn't feel like typing it all out again.

Shadowman · May 15, 2000

Just one remark

>So you are telling me that
>you played Fallout and Fallout2
>without engaging in combat? Did
>you tell the Master to
>simply kill himself?

Yes, actually that's exactly what Xotor is saying. In fallout it was possible to talk the master into comiting suicide.

Guest · May 15, 2000

i think there trying to point out that the stoyline and dev. is what made Fallout so good (i tend to think that it was the exicutution of the story line not he storyline its self that made it so good after all post apocoliptic worlds are a dime a doz. oh and it hellped that you had such controle over chericter creation) but they have a point to the story beeing impotent RPGs arnt like FPS in that all that maters is the action an RPG like that would um how can i put this....suck

Roshambo · May 15, 2000

I'll give you a real response:

When you can figure out how to make your posts more legible.

Guest · May 16, 2000

try this translation

i believe thst what skynet was trying to point out is that it was the story line and development of the story line is what mande fallout so good, not the RPG element alone. he dose have a valid point in a FPS (first person shooter) the story line is less important then in a RPG after all in a FPS all you have to do is solve some simple puzzles and a lot of killing. in an RPG if you dont have a story you dont have a game. some of the best RPGs out there have incredible story lines and only moderate character creation nowhere near the level of fallout.(foremost among them was the Riftwar saga with a storyline based off of Raymond Fiests works) Fallout however had only a mediocer story line (post apocalypic storys are a dime a dozen) waht made it so good was the

Guest · May 16, 2000

finishing the last post

was the level of involvement you had with your character it was in some of the same traditions as the pen and paper games. you had a personal stake in your character that allowed you to project your self into the game geting the max out of the story.
now then if you want any of what a said in past posts just ask.

Guest · May 17, 2000

RE: Oh my

<< Who knows, maybe I'll be happy when Vampire gets released and Pool of Radiance... But they're not post nuclear... I mean they'll be fun, but the spirit of reality isn't there. >>

Vampire definately has me curious.
I'm thinking Pool of Radiance will be alot like BG, but that's not really what I want.
I don't know what to think about Icewind Dale. It's BIS, but it's hack & slash, but it's BIS.
Neverwinter Nights could bring PnP to the computer, so that could be interesting.
Dues Ex I'll read some reviews and then decide from there.
Arcanum seems the most likely contender to keep my mind off FO3. It's got key people from the previous Fallouts developing it, and you can't go wrong there.

Skie

Judas Iscariot · May 18, 2000

RE: finishing the last post

Hi I'm new to this board and I am an avid fan of both Fallouts.

After reading the rather heated debate on the upcoming FO:BOS game, I thought I would throw my own two cents in.

First of all, I view the new game as an expansion of the Fallout universe, sort of as a new chapter in a (hopefuly) continous book. Instead of trudging out from ANOTHER vault to save the world all by your damn self(NPC's seem to die rather quickly in Fallout no?) you are instead offered the chance to see what a squad of BOS members goes through in this brave new world.

Secondly, NONE of us has actually had a hand in developing the game so therefore NONE of us has actually played it. Let's see how it turns out first before casting premature judgements so much like mud. If the game turns out to be a total dud, then we, as consumers, can demand our money back and we'll never see something like this again(hopefully). Or if the game turns out to be smashingly good, then think how embarrased those of you will be about your comments concerning the game.

Besides I am waiting for anything Fallout related right now .....even if it is a racing game .....nah..Im not THAT desperate LOL.

Thank you for your time and patience...

Judas Iscariot

Guest · May 18, 2000

RE: finishing the last post

Well spoken!!! (clapping)

Grifman · May 19, 2000

RE: Mooo mooooo

(snip)

>
>A tactical strategy is just as
>un-Fallout as a racing game.
> Just as how FOT:BOS
>is taking a tiny facet
>and making it completely different
>I can tie in a
>racing game too:

Not really. Combat was a big part of Fallout. It didn't have to be, but given the large number of guns and combat skills/perks/etc. I suspect it was for most people.

Don't remember but one car, and no races in the Wasteland, do you?

>
>"With the lack of cars in
>the world, only a few
>have them and compete against
>each other in huge desert
>races. Since this is
>the future and all that
>is at stake is money,
>there are no rules, so
>have fun!"
>
>I just tied it into Fallout.
> Is it Fallout however?
> Is it a high
>quality standard of RPG we
>have come to expect from
>Fallout, that we base other
>RPGs off of? Not
>no, HELL NO. And
>that's what FOT:BOS does.

Go ahead and make up silly examples if it makes you feel better. Keep it up long enough and maybe Interplay _will_ make a game of your idea.

(snip)

>>
>>Like I said, your point was
>>silly and ridiculous. So I
>>guess you missed my point
>>entirely too

>
>It isn't an inaccurate analogy.
>FOT:BOS is just as stupid
>an idea, as immense a
>clash of genre, to Fallout
>as a racing game would
>be.

Again, given the level of combat in Fallout vs. level of car racing in the game, I'm afraid not. Or where there car races on the secret island I heard all about? Can you tell me how to get there?

(snip)

>Hack and slash is meant to
>mean "combat oriented," not to
>mean real-time 3rd person killing.
> Your game fits right
>in.

Ok, call it what you want. It fits in then - so what of it?

>>Besides
>>the game is _not_ an
>>RPG. It is silly
>>to condemn a game for
>>what it is not trying
>>to be.
>
>And that's exactly what's wrong with
>it.

Who are you to say? The Fallout God?

(snip)

>>>You're right. But what says
>>>>they can't or shouldn't extend
>>>>the franchise? What's wrong
>>>>with a tactical combat game
>>>>if it is done well?
>>>
>>>Then why not a shooter, a
>>>racing game, a sim, etc.
>>>etc.
>>
>>I have no problem with them
>>developing any game that fits
>>in the FO universe

>> Though I doubt that
>>racing or a sim would
>>fit

or be successful.
>
>Your game fits in about as
>well as any of the
>aforementioned "ideas." Hell I
>could link them all to
>fit in the "Fallout Universe"
>but geez, does that make
>it anything more than a
>game with Fallout motif, a
>sorry excuse for a connection
>to the rest of Fallout,
>and the Fallout name?

Again, combat is an important part of Fallout - sims, car racing, I never saw in the game, did you? There is a connection whether you admit it or not.

(snip)

>>>The BOS was trying to keep
>>>a little bit out of
>>>sight, and to themselves.
>>>They didn't want to get
>>>into any full-blown conflicts.
>>>
>>>Oops, story clash number one.
>>
>>Ooops, we actually know very little
>>about the BOS history, only
>>a bare outline. They
>>did fight the Masters Army,
>>and who knows what happened
>>after that? Do you?
>> Or what happened after
>>the Enclave. If you
>>can't answer those questions, then
>>you don't know there is
>>a conflict

>
>I suppose you could also have
>a conflict in the remnants
>of south-east Asia too correct?
> Hell ANYTHING could happen
>technically, oh wait, how about
>throwing this conflict say, 20
>years before Fallout 1?
>Your game will simply be
>an anomoly in the chain
>of events surrounding Fallout.

Given that we don't know everything, anything that does not contradict what we do know could technically happen. But that is entirely logical and so obvious that it doesn't need to be stated, though you felt some need to. So what is your point? I showed you that what we know about BOS doesn't contradict what we know - which you asserted it did - and when I proved you wrong you changed the topic - how convenient

>
>And we're not dicussing what went
>on, we're discussing the character
>of the BOS itself, that
>they like to keep to
>themselves, have a low profile.

So they send a squad to monitor the mutant army retreat - seems pretty low profile. Oh, and they did assist the other cities in fighting off the mutants - was that low profile.

Just admit it - there is no contradiction, ok. Not that it matters to you anyway. You don't care - you don't like the game period. But because you have no logical reason to, you have to look for one, right?

>>>>>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
(snip)

>>>>I think such a game, fighting
>>>>mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in
>>>>the Wasteland would be great.
>>>> No one has done
>>>>such a game. Seems
>>>>pretty unique to me -
>>>>and very post apoc

>>>
>>>Now here is where I stop
>>>saing you are naive, and
>>>start saying you are stupid.
>>> So you go out
>>>and kill shit. HOW
>>>FUCKING ORIGINAL IS THAT?!
>>
>>Who's stupid? Where did I
>>say original? Perhaps you
>>have trouble reading? Perhaps
>>you're losing it here

>
>Look above: "No one has
>done such a thing" and
>"seems pretty unique to me."
> The definition for "original"
>is "something that has never
>been done or created before."
> Who's losing it here?

I used "unique" to describe the background of the tactical game. That is unique - no tactical game has used that background. You used "original" to describe shooting things - that is the original I disagreed with, and never said was original.

So if I wrong, feel free to point out another tactical squad game taking place in a post apoc background. Hmmm, didn't think so. And which I pointed out in the quote below which you ignored.

>>BTW since it has never been
>>done before, I will say
>>it now, a combat game
>>in a post apoc world
>>is original. You can
>>call me stupid now if
>>it will make you feel
>>better

>
>Okay, and how original is Duke
>Nukem compared to DOOM?
>You still do the same
>thing: Kill stuff.
>
>Your game is as original as
>a MOD of XCOM to
>look like Fallout. That
>is NOT originality.

The background, as I said is original. Tactical games are basically the same in execution, but background can count for alot - ask anyone who has played XCOM if it's background didn't make a difference. Or the the different merc characters in JA2 didn't make a difference.

>
>Originality is a change of concept
>and gameplay. According to
>you, FOT:BOS is the same
>as XCom in a Post-Apoc
>world. Is that originality?

Originality as how you define it. Kind of hard for me to argue with you when you make the definitions.

(snip)

>>
>>The problem you have is that
>>it is not an RPG.
>> That fact that that
>>does not bother is apparently
>>lost on you

>>So, why does it have
>>to be an RPG?
>>
>>>
>>>From your statements, I can easily
>>>see that you are not
>>>of the old-school.
>>
>>I'm glad you can see at
>>least one thing easily

>
>Which shows how mindless and clueless
>you are to what Fallout
>had created. Maybe you
>should talk to someone at
>BIS and get a clue.

Nice ad hominem attack. Usually resort to that when logic fails.

You pompous twit! The great Fallout God! You're you high on your horse you can't see that you're head is where you hindquarters ought to be!

(snip)

>>>*sigh*
>>>Which Fo3 will have to ignore
>>>the presence of FT: BOS.
>>
>>*sigh* I don't understand. Why
>>will it have to be
>>ignored? FO3 might even
>>take place somewhere else in
>>the US and have nothing
>>to do with old storyline.
>> Or this story might
>>have to do with an
>>expansion of the BOS into
>>another area of the US.
>>There are _lots_ of possibilities.
>
>Haven't been around the block much
>lately huh?
>
>Here's a good example: Ultima
>Online and Ultima.

(snip Ultima story)

And the punchline to this little fairy tale is? Oh, yeah, people who play Tactics will think this is all of the Fallout universe there is.

Funny, how XCOM Interceptor hasn't made anyone forget the original XCOM has it?

Besides, what do you care what the "cattle" think? You've already expressed your contempt for them. Why do they matter now?

>
>> 2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.
>>
>>It doesn't change anything other than
>>it is not an RPG.
>
>And that changes everything.

And your evidence is? Or is that just another unsupported assertion?

>
>> There is nothing in
>>BOS that says FO3 cannot/willnot
>>be made.
>
>But there is something that says
>that FOT:BOS should NOT be
>made.

Yeah, the Great Fallout God, Xotor. I forgot your Majesty. Geez, and I thought Frank Horrigan was pompous.

>
>>And frankly, if done well, I'd
>>love a "futuristic strategy amidst
>>blasted buildings" myself.
>
>I wonder if you've even played
>Fallout.. maybe your friend told
>you the storyline? You
>seem to have no cognition
>of Fallout other than its
>motif.

The Fallout God speaks again - but too bad he isn't infallible.

>
>>>Fighting amidst ruined buildigs. Who
>>>cares?
>>>It might as well BE X-Com,
>>>but with a different setting.
>>>
>>>
>>>Can you say "clone"?
>>
>>If done well, can you say,
>>"Sounds great!"

>>
>>But I think you'd say "Less
>>filling!"

>
>A rose by any other name
>would smell as sweet.
>
>An unoriginal game under any other
>motif is still a clone.

Irrelevant. XCOM, JA2 are clones and all great. Though I don't like RTS games, Starcraft, Warcraft, AoE/AoK are all clones, and all great games in their genres. Clones are irrelevant.

>
>
>>>Again, let's just make a shooter,
>>>a racer, a sim, etc.
>>> By your logic, it's
>>>allright to do so.
>>
>>I see no problem with a
>>closely related game, which this
>>one is. A racer
>>or sim would make little
>>sense given the universe.
>
>Closely related? Hardly. Since
>when does tactical strategy and
>RPG mix?

Take a look at JA2. Mixes quite a bit there. Look at Fallout - its got lots of tactical combat - that's just a fact. Alot of games cross genres, these days.

>
>>>You kill things. Big whoop.
>>> Fallout was not intended
>>>to be a combat game,
>>>it stressed the story.
>>>For you not to see
>>>the inherent problems makes it
>>>clear that you are a
>>>"new" RPG player. "Perfect
>>>compliment", by stressing something that
>>>was not the focus of
>>>the originals?
>>
>>So why does every Fallout game
>>have to be an RPG?
>
>Because Fallout is a story, not
>a world. It is
>a story of the Vault
>Dweller and his lineage within
>a Fallout World. It's
>taking Calvin and Hobbes and
>making a book about his
>uncle.

Fallout is not a world? Well, who says? How do you know the next Fallout RPG will have anything to do with the Vault Dweller? Looks like there might not be much more to tell along those lines.

(snip)

>
>Compliments are also supposed to be
>beneficial. FOT:BOS is a
>cash cow. Interplay management
>looked at Fallout and said
>to themselves: Hey, the basic
>structure has been laid out,
>we have our basic interface,
>and have already worked out
>the combat algorithms, let's just
>make a quick game and
>some quick revenue off the
>strategy community.
>
>This is not complimenting to Fallout's
>lineage.

Oh, great Fallout God, I am sorry but we don't worship at your feet. You are only a game.

>
>>>As I asked Skynet, do you
>>>have a clue as to
>>>why Fallout was made?
>>
>>To tell a story, to let
>>the player play a role
>>in the Wasteland, to be
>>someone else. To be
>>a part of a different,
>>seemingly living universe. To
>>have an impact on the
>>world in which he participates.
>> Good enough?
>
>Good, at least you have some
>inkling to what Fallout is.

Oh, my, Fallout God doesn't denigrate me. I perhaps should fall prostrate at his feet in shock!

>
>
>>But none of that means I
>>can't enjoy a tactical combat
>>game in the Fallout universe.
>
>And hell, that doesn't mean I
>can't enjoy a RACING game
>in the Fallout universe either.
> Or wait, how about
>that Mechwarrior idea I had?
>BOS vs the Chinese scientists.
>Tell me what's wrong with that?

Nothing necessarily, if done well. I can find no logical reason if they are done will and consistent with the universe.

(snip)

>>>
>>>Again, if you can only see
>>>that Fallout was made for
>>>the combat, I pity you.
>>
>>No Fallout wasn't just about combat
>>which is what made it
>>so interesting, but this game
>>isn't a Fallout RPG, for
>>the millioneth time - and
>>I have no problem with
>>that, no matter how much
>>I'd love to have FO3.
>
>And for not being an RPG,
>that's what's wrong with it.
>

That is an emotional and illogical argument.

>
>>Gosh, there are perhaps some things
>>I should be pitied about,
>>maybe, but this isn't one
>>of them. It's not
>>like it's a crucial part
>>of life is it?
>
>No, but we are not debating
>that are we? And
>he's pitying YOU for lacking
>the cognition to see that
>Fallout created something new from
>something old: a true
>to P&P RPG with something
>that set it appart:
>It didn't require combat.
>Thus the game achieved something
>that really hadn't been done
>for CRPGs.
>
>And now a contradicting variant on
>Fallout is being made.
>What does this say?
>It says that Fallout is
>not combat oriented.
>
>>Perhaps you need to step away
>>from that keyboard and take
>>a chill man if you
>>are pitying someone about their
>>opinion of a _game_ .
>
>It's not the opinion, it's the
>lack of cognition behind the
>opinion.

The great Fallout God speaks in arrogant tones again. You really need to get your off the high horse.

>
>>Maybe even role play real life
>>for a while . .
>
>Hilarious, he can't come up with
>a real argument so he's
>using the cliché "I have
>a life and you don't"
>routine. Get off it.

Argument?! LOL, hilarious yourself. Your argument is almost entirely based upon emotion and outrage. There is very little logic or reason for your opposition to this game.

Your whole argument is that it is not an RPG. That's like saying I don't like steak because it doesn't taste like fish.

>
>
>>>Cattle come in herds. I
>>>said fans. OF which,
>>>the old-school return to Classic
>>>RPGs is what the intent
>>>of Fallout was.
>>
>>Yeah, let's just call everyone who
>>disagrees with us "cattle" when
>>it disproves your assertion, right?
>
>No, it's meant to imply the
>dramatic push for killing games.
> These "cattle" are the
>people who have no sense
>or want of an enveloping
>story or game.

The only problem is that I like a good RPG as much as anyone. I just don't think BOS is the end of the world for Fallout. You can't typecast me no matter how hard you try.

(snip)

>It is a proven fact that
>the intelligence of a group
>of people goes as the
>inverse of the number of
>people in the group.
>Also, the more something has
>in common with many people,
>the more basic it is.
>
>
>This is the case with many
>games, notable shooters. Nearly
>every gamer likes shooters, hell
>I like them in their
>genre.

Actually, I can't stand them. Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do.

Fallout appeals to
>a certain type of people.
> Expand the Fallout universe
>and you'll have people buying
>the games they like, not
>the other games in the
>universe.
>
>>Easy way out. And just
>>some more pompousity on your
>>part.
>
>Mooo mooooo..

That's right, just mooo when you don't have an argument, right . . . it's easier to call someone "cattle" than to argue rationally.

>
>I guess to you, a demand
>for mind-enlarging games is considered
>pompous. Tell me, did
>you get most of the
>analogies in Fallout?

No a demand for such games is not pompous. Condeming those who disagree on one specific game by calling them "cattle" is. That's what one of my "beefs" (nice little pun there) with you is.

(snip)

>>
>>Diablo/BG fans will not play BOS.
>> It is more like
>>Xcom/JA2, both of which are
>>hardcore strat games, and appeal
>>to hardcore gamers.
>
>Correction: Tactical strategy players.

No correction required - tactical strategy players are hardcore gamers.

>
>> Just
>>the type of people that
>>might like a Fallout if
>>introduced to it. And
>>how do I know so.
>>Because I am one.
>
>No, they bought the game because
>they like strategy games, what
>would make them want to
>buy a game completely out
>of their genre? Will
>they try the older Fallout
>games? Probably not, hell
>most aren't even on game
>shelves anymore.

Geez, go right ahead and ignor my own personal example because it entirely refutes your argument. Talk about being obtuse. I know had Tactics existed earlier, I would have bought Fallout sooner than I did, being much more interested and familiar with the universe.

You cannot refute my own personal experience, no matter how hard you try.

>
>>I love hardcore strat games.
>>Picked FO on a whim
>>because I like the genre
>>and I got it cheap.
>> I think a well
>>done strat game could draw
>>in others like me.
>
>Draw in others that just buy
>a game because it was
>cheap?

No stupid, draw in others interested in the genre. That's it, just ignore half of what I said. I'll spell it out since the Fallout God can't understand his "cattle". If a strat gamer enjoys an Fallout tactics game, he might try out the RPG the next time. Comprehende?

>
>I bought Fallout because it was
>a dynamic RPG. I
>wanted a high quality of
>RPG games. I was
>sick of games that relied
>on tried-and-proven tactics that get
>old. People who buy
>RPGs especially of the class
>associated with Fallout, buy the
>game because they're looking for
>that type of game.

But not always. And I am not you. I didn't know for sure what I was getting but I was willing to take a chance. Someone who has played Tactics might be willing to take that chance if they were familiar with the storyline and background.

>
>>Unless "old school" RPGers with an
>>innate sense of superiority drive
>>us off? Think that
>>is a good idea?
>
>A little defensive are we?
>We want to preserve what
>makes a game great.
>Not promoting what makes a
>game popular.

Nah, I'm not defensive. I've just got the Fallout God calling me "cattle". What do you expect? Me to fall at your feet in awe?

>
>Compare teeny-bopper music to classical.
>What is more sophisicated and
>higher quality? But what
>is more popular now?
>
>>>>Well, so what if the Diablo
>>>>people wanted hack and slash?
>>>> A PS:T or FO
>>>>will never appeal to that
>>>>crowd. Does that mean
>>>>the games we like are
>>>>going to disappear? Perhaps
>>>>not if we can expand
>>>>the fan base with games
>>>>like this.
>>>
>>>Now here you really show how
>>>naive you can be.

Nah, I'm certain the Fallout God will show me.

>>
>>And how pompous you can be.
>
>You're being naive because you expect
>that making this game will
>only promote the other games
>and FO3. It won't.
> In fact all it
>does is make people want
>to play *OTHER* tactical strategies.
> You'll see more players
>flocking to XCOM after this,
>not to Fallout RPGs.
>
>Don't you see this? Stop
>the naivity.

Stop your stupidity.

Did you ignore all that I wrote above? Perhaps I am naive, but if so then you can't read. I gave my own personal example, which shows the possibilities and you totally ignore it, and call me naive. I gave you an example of myself, a strat game geting involved and interested in the Fallout uinverse and you totally ignored it. You really are a pompous arrogant twit, aren't you?

>
>>>Marketing and the higher-ups will say
>>>screw the one that makes
>>>the less money, in favor
>>>of what rakes it in.
>>> So yes, if BOS
>>>is an immense hit and
>>>appeals to the droves of
>>>hack and slash kiddies, then
>>>Fo3 is as good as
>>>dead.

And if you knew anything about your RPG genre, unless you attract more people to the "serious" RPGs, they are as good as dead. Just look at Desslock's RPG sales numbers. PS:T numbers are just terrible - especially in comparison to Diable/BG. So what are you going to do? Sit here and whine and bemoan the state of things, or take a chance that a game like Tactics might draw people in?

All I can say is stagnation will guarantee no serious RPG's - expansion and exposure to other gamers might save them. You know so much, Great Fallout God, you got any better ideas?

(snip)

>
>>>Fallout Arena: Killing Tournament.
>>>Why stop at one cross genre,
>>>as it would only help
>>>and expand the universe, as
>>>per your point.
>>>If you believe that, you are
>>>incredibly naive.
>>
>>You really like throwing that "naive"
>>word around don't you.
>
>If the shoe fits...

Stuff it in your mouth with your other one . . .

>
>>Well, perhaps with your all
>>knowing sense of superiority, "pompous"
>>describes you best.
>
>So it's called pomposity if someone
>wants to preserve something of
>a higher standard from drifting
>with the masses?

No, it's pompous to think you know everything, and to call anyone who disagrees with you "cattle". It's pompous to say you have the only answer. It's pompous how you go about trying to perserve your higher standard, not trying to do it. And if you can't tell the difference, I'm not going to try and explain it to you anymore.

>
>>Go ahead, if you want, keep
>>up that "old school" sense
>>of superiority. Drive away
>>those that might be allies,
>>who might be attracted to
>>your genre, like myself.
>
>Allies? You speak of this
>like a war.

If you want to keep quality RPGs then you need to think smart. Being pompous and arrogant is not being smart.

The
>fact is that people stick
>to their genre.

Really. Please feel free to share the source of your numbers. I'd like to see them.

If
>they want tactical strategy, they'll
>stick to it.

Just like I did, huh? Oops, I hate to keep bringing up that inconvenient fact you keep ignoring.

"Fallout"
>isn't going to draw people
>to FOT:BOS, hell most of
>the people buying FOT:BOS have
>never even played the other
>two.

Again, your source data for the above assertion is? Yeah, I thought so. Feel free to look at the BOS message board at their site and check the numbers there

That's more of a sample than you have.

(snip)

>>Yeah, that's a smart way to
>>get better RPG's.
>
>It's a better way to PRESERVE
>better games.

Again, take a look at Desslock's numbers - in fact I think there is a link at this site. Unless you do something other than wailing and complaining, you won't have anything to preserve.

>>>Maybe I should go try Diablo
>>instead - if you hate
>>it, it's got to have
>>something going for it, right?
>> Is that really what
>>you want? If not,
>>then I suggest you get
>>off your high horse.
>
>Actually, Diablo may appeal to your
>shallow mind. You obviously
>have no mind for Fallout,
>or even an RPG.
>I wonder if you even
>read books.

You know, you really are a pompous ass.

Grifman · May 19, 2000